Class. 
Book 




- ■' <^- 



GopyriglitN?. 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSrr 



INTENTIONS AND 
PATENTS 



BY 

PHILIP E. EDELMAN 

AUTHOR OF ** EXPERIMENTAL WIRELESS STATIONS," ETC. 



[The constitutional provision. — The Congress shall 
have power ... to promote the progress of Science 
and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to 
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their 
respective Writings and Discoveries.] 




NEW YORK: 
D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY 

25 Park Place 

1915 






Copyright, 1915, 

BY 

D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY 

All rights reserved, including translations 



Stanhope iPrcss 

F. H.GILSON COMPANY 
BOSTON, U.S.A. 



NOV 26 1915 

'CI.A416552 



En 
iMg iFa%r nnh Mixtion 



PREFACE 

This volume is intended particularly for all persons 
interested in patents, either as inventors, investors, or 
manufacturers. It is intended that the layman also 
will find considerable matter of interest. 

There is a general ignorance of the points involved 
in patent procedure and the possibilities in patented 
inventions, even on the part of patentees. In fact 
the author believes that the patent system is mis- 
understood or at least incompletely understood by the 
very persons who are the most vitally concerned. This 
has resulted in an enormous waste. People have spent 
time and money on unpatentable ideas, patented value- 
less inventions, invested money in worthless patents, 
and have otherwise wasted time and money in ill- 
chosen and unwise attempts to benefit under the patent 
laws. On the other hand, hundreds of people neglect 
to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the 
patent statutes and fail to carry out and patent many 
valuable inventions. Even manufacturers have neg- 
lected to secure the benefits of patented machinery 
and processes in a number of cases and have failed to 
take advantage of the great possibilities. 

The modern inventor is, for the most part, neither 
a nonentity nor a crank, and his inventions are far from 
absurd or useless. In many instances he is technically 
trained and in most cases well educated. He makes 
mistakes and fails in many cases to be sure, but when 
everything is considered the percentage of failures from 
the commercial point of view is not greater than in 
any other commercial pursuit. Many patents are un- 



VI PREFACE 

wisely applied for and taken out, of course, and a large 
part of all that are allowed never repa}' the patentee 
for the time and money required, but invention con- 
tinues in spite of failure and each effort aids in the in- 
evitable accomplishment of perfected results. The 
inventor stands in a class which is perhaps higher than 
any other class to which any human beings belong. 
Invention requires a faculty which is more than a mere 
result of education, a complex faculty which requires 
the best efforts of the human mind. The inventor 
creates something which has never existed before, and 
imparts an increased value to the material wealth of 
the earth, so to speak. What pursuit could be higher? 

The investor and manufacturer should be vitally con- 
cerned in aiding in the development of inventions. 
There is no property which is capable of such opportu- 
nities, such possibilities, such values, or such chances for 
commercial success. The increment on a patent with 
valuable protected subject matter is enormous and far 
exceeds the increment on real estate, stocks, or the 
other properties which concern the average investor so 
absorbingly. There is no greater field of investment 
than that open to the investor in the matter of meri- 
torious patent rights. 

The manufacturer must also adjust his business to 
include patent rights. Few manufacturers are even 
aware of the need of patents to their lasting success. 
Patents are by their very nature his strongest weapon, 
both for offense and defense. Indeed patents go hand 
in hand with trade success. 

It is a further purpose of this book to point out these 
opportunities, to show the steps necessary and the mis- 
takes to be avoided. It is not intended that this book 
should make the inventor his own attorney. The 
law points given are intended rather to give patentees 



PREFACE vii 

an understanding of their rights. The very questions 
involved are complex. Is it patentable? What is the 
patent for? Will it pay? What do the claims mean? 
What is infringement? Can the patent be sold for 
profit? All these and other questions hazard the paten- 
tee and his backers at the outset. It is a purpose of 
this book to aid in their solution. 

The subject is explained in everyday terms. The mat- 
ter is suggestive rather than dictative. There are no 
set rules to be applied in every case. Invention takes 
its own course. 

The matter is not exhaustive. The subject is too 
comprehensive to allow of such treatment. The in- 
formation given will be found reasonably complete and 
all that is necessary in most cases. The viewpoint is 
optimistic throughout and considers the interests of all 
concerned. The author realizes that a work of this 
kind is open to criticism and is well aware of imperfec- 
tions. This book is the result of a close study of the 
subjects involved and embraces the experiences of many 
inventors and patentees. Many items from govern- 
ment publications, periodicals, and other sources have 
been included. As far as is known at the present time 
it contains much information which is not to be found 
elsewhere. It is not in any sense a law book, nor is it 
a mere compilation of things to invent. The idea has 
been to provide a text and reference book for all per- 
sons interested in patents. The author will be pleased 
to receive suggestions and kindly criticisms. It is only 
in this manner that the scope and value of the work 
can be increased and perfected. The author cannot, 
however, attempt to answer additional questions, give 
additional advice, or even agree to answer all private 
inquiries, since his time is all taken up with other matters. 

In short, the author desires this book to be an inven- 



Vlll PREFACE 

tors' book, a book for all inventors from the scientist 

and commercial inventor to the struggling employee 

with the " right idea.'' The chapters on invention and 

the present issues involved in patent matters have been 

written to further this object. He wants you to feel 

that it is your book and has written it specially for you. 

If you receive more than the mere intrinsic value of 

the book and desire to show your appreciation, you can 

do so by telling others. No author is insensible to 

appreciation. 

I ask you to read, that you may know 
What and where and how to go. 

PHILIP E. EDELMAN. 
Minneapolis, Minnesota. 



CONTENTS 



Chap. Pagk 

Preface v 

I. The Development of the Patent System. ....... 1 

II. The Patent Office 12 

III. Patent Attorneys 18 

IV. The Germs of Invention 26 

V. The Fields of Invention 35 

VI. Preliminary Steps to Secure a Patent 52 

VII. Patentability and Practicability 63 

VIII. Application for and Prosecution of a Patent... 74 

IX. Protecting an Invention 86 

X. Points of Patent Procedure 113 

XI. Patent Rights and How They are Utilized 129 

XII. Disposing of Patent Rights 142 

XIII. About Infringements 162 

XIV. Points About Foreign Patents 176 

XV. Thoughts on Invention and Inventors 188 

XVI. The Present Status of Inventions 195 

Memoranda 200 

Appendix 208 

Index 279 



IX 



IIYENTIONS AND PATENTS 



CHAPTER I 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PATENT SYSTEM 

Away back in the middle ages and even earlier, there 
were men and groups of men who in the modern sense 
of the word would be classified as inventors. There 
was the man who first found that fire could be generated 
by friction, the man who first found that a tree trunk 
hollowed out would serve as a boat, and the man who 
then found that wind power could be utilized to propel 
such a contrivance. The early men were prompted by 
the same motives as are the modern inventors. The 
early devices filled a demand, satisfied a want, or created 
a new utility. Man found it necessary to defend him- 
self from the wild beasts, and finding his own hands 
insufficient he created weapons. In fact, some of the 
early weapons and instruments of warfare were inven- 
tions of a high order. Considering the time at which 
they were devised many of these were truly wonderful. 
The battering rams, the crossbows, and even the spears 
and slungshots required great ingenuity for their crea- 
tion. So we see that ever since creation, man, even 
though uncivilized, has been of necessity an inventor. 
The joy of creation is a fundamental trait of every 
human being since the very beginning of things. Even to 
this day it manifests itself in every child more or less — • 
in the child's play. Like every other natural trait, this 
trait is stunted or enhanced more or less in each case. 

As people became more civilized and numerous, the 

1 



2 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

need for new and more varied necessities brought out 
a separate class of men who devoted their hves to such 
work. It was this class of men who undertook such 
projects as the building of ships, roads, castles, and the 
other early feats of engineering. There grew up a class 
of men who originated and studied the sciences of 
astronomy, alchemy, and even early physics. In still 
later years a great class of craftsmen grew up. This 
class undertook and carried on the work of transform- 
ing the various raw products into wearing apparel, 
utensils, and various other necessities. As the years 
rolled on this class continued to flourish. It was only 
natural that in thus devoting their lives to a single in- 
dustry the workers learned of many kinks and short 
cuts in their work. Processes were undoubtedly evolved 
and very naturally kept secret as long as possible. The 
father would keep his particular secret all his life and 
then pass it on to the next generation. This method 
was practiced for years and years, and is still in use in a 
modified way in certain cases even to-day. 

But secrets, as is well known, are very elusive things. 
Undoubtedly, many of these early secrets were stolen 
and copied by rivals. Disputes and quarrels would 
naturally follow. Such troubles were very likely the 
germs which led to the beginnings of the patent system. 

The granting of patents began at a very early date. 
Patents were granted to various individuals and guilds, 
giving them the complete monopoly of certain commod- 
ities. This method was greatly abused in England, 
especially during the reigns of Elizabeth and James. 
During those years it came to be a favorite means for 
replenishing the royal exchequer. Patents were granted 
freely giving monopolies on entire classes of commodi- 
ties. Certain companies were given the exclusive right 
to manufacture and sell a certain class of necessities. 



THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PATENT SYSTEM 3 

Such favoritism led to great abuses. The people were 
forced to pay unwarranted prices. Practically no one 
commodity escaped from monopoly in this manner. The 
people objected strongly to these methods and clamored 
so loudly that in the year 1623 the statutes against 
monopolies were enacted. This put an end to the 
abuse. The whole affair extending over so many years 
had one bad effect. The people had been burdened so 
heavily with the illegal monopolies that the experience 
left a hostile feeling against all monopoly whether it 
was legal or not. Indeed this hostile feeling may be 
said to exist even to this day in some degree. 

The terms legal and illegal monopoly should be clearly 
understood. It is regarded as strictly legal when a 
monopoly is granted to an inventor to enjoy the exclu- 
sive right to his invention. The illegal monopolies, on 
the other hand, are those which were granted to restrict 
trade, particularly in common commodities. Those 
patents, which were granted, giving such monopolies 
of the necessities of life were certainly illegal and worked 
a great hardship on the people. It is little wonder that the 
patents which followed should be regarded with suspicion 
and distrust even though they were legal in their nature. 

Patents did not take on their present meaning until 
the early part of the nineteenth century. In the colonial 
days in America a few patents were issued to individuals 
by the colonial governments. Perhaps the earliest 
patent that was granted in this country was the one 
issued to Samuel Winslow in 1641, by the General 
Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony. It was a patent 
for a process of manufacturing salt and was issued for 
a term of ten years. The patent was issued condition- 
ally and required that a works should be established 
within one year. Whether the plant was ever con- 
structed or whether the patent was ever utilized com- 



4 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

mercially is not definitely known and is unimportant. 
Five years later the same colony issued another patent 
for " The sole privilege of manufacturing salt, after his 
particular method/' to John Winthrop. The term of 
this patent was to be for twenty years. Several other 
patents were issued in the following years, principally 
by the colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 
Pennsylvania. Apparently a patent granted in this way 
was only good in the colony which made the grant. 

Patents were not regarded as of much importance 
during the colonial days, and when the colonies asserted 
their independence and the Articles of Confederation 
were drawn up, no provision was made for patents or 
patent laws. Patents were still issued independently 
by the several states as had been done by the colonies 
previously. If an inventor desired protection for his 
invention in all the states, it was necessary to make 
separate applications in each state. One inventor, 
James Rumsey, invented a new type of boat and in the 
year 1785 obtained patents for his invention from the 
states of Maryland, Virginia, New York, and Penn- 
sylvania. In connection with this particular inven- 
tion, it is of interest to know that this invention was 
disputed by John Fitch in what was probably the 
earliest " priority contest." Among the records of the 
case is an indorsement by so famous a person as George 
Washington. 

The document follows : 

" I have seen the model of Mr. Rumsey's boat, con- 
structed to work against stream, examined the powers 
upon which it acts, been eye-witness to an actual experi- 
ment in running water of some rapidity, and give it 
as my opinion (although I had little faith before) that 
he has discovered the art of working boats by mechan- 
ism and small manual assistance against rapid currents; 



THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PATENT SYSTEM 5 

that this discovery is of vast importance, may be of 
greatest usefulness in our inland navigation; and if it 
succeeds, of which I have no doubt, that the value of 
it is greatly enhanced by the simplicity of the works, 
which, when seen and explained, may be executed by 
the most common mechanic. 

'^ Given under my hand at the town of Bath, County 
of Berkely, in the State of Virginia, this 7th of Septem- 

^^^' ^'^^^' '' George Washington."* 

When the Constitution was drawn up it seems to have 
been decided unanimously that protection should be 
afforded to authors and inventors. Under article one, 
section 8, item 8, it says: 

^' The Congress shall have power ... to promote 
the progress of science and the useful arts by securing 
to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their 
respective writings and discoveries." 

Based upon this provision the first patent laws were 
passed in the year 1790. Under this act a patent was 
issued for '^ Any useful art, manufacture, engine, ma- 
chine, or device, or any improvement therein not before 
known or used." The applications under this act had 
to be made to a board consisting of the Secretary of 
State, the Secretary of War, and the Attorney General. 
The concurrence of any two of these members was 
sufficient for the issuance. The term which the patent 
should run was agreed upon and was not to exceed 
fourteen years. The fee charged was only a small ; 
amount. The act provided for the punishment of in- 
fringement and gave equal advantages to foreign as well 
as American citizens. The first inventor to receive a 
patent under this act was Samuel Hopkins of Vermont. 

* President Washington instigated the first statutes (1790) by a 
message to Congress. The early patents only required a small fee 
— less than S5.00 in most cases. 



6 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

This patent was dated July 31, 1790. The invention 
was for a method of making pot and pearl ashes. In 
those early days the granting of a patent was a state 
occasion. The first patent bore the famous signatures 
of George Washington, the President; Thomas Jeffer- 
son, the Secretary of State; and Edmund Randolph, the 
Attorney General. The first few patents were all signed 
by the President of the United States. The grant was 
usually in folio size and was embossed on vellum. Each 
grant bore the great seal of the United States. Only 
three patents were issued during the year 1790, the other 
two being issued to J. S. Sampson and 0. Evans, respec- 
tively. Only fifty-five patents in all were issued under 
this act. 

As the list of inventions grew this act became inade- 
quate. In the year 1793 a law was passed, repealing 
that of 1790. Under this act grants were restricted to 
citizens of the United States. Applications which had 
been issued by the states before the Constitution was 
drawn up were surrendered. All applications were now 
made to the Secretary of State. Conflicting applica- 
tions were decided by a board of three arbitrators. 
Another important feature was the power given to the 
District Court to declare fraudulent grants void upon 
due proof. In 1794 and 1800 additional laws were 
passed as supplements to the act of 1793. The last 
addition gave privileges to aliens, provided that the 
said aliens had resided in the United States for two 
years. In the early days, just mentioned, the public 
and the courts were hostile towards patent grants. It 
was the old feeling against monopoly which was first 
aroused in England. The advantages of the system were 
but little understood, and patents were looked on with 
suspicion. This feeling was particularly acute during 
the administration of Jefferson, when all applications 



THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PATENT SYSTEM 7 

were strictly censored. It was thought that the grant- 
ing of patents might encourage private monopohes and 
lead to the conditions which had been experienced in 
England. When a case involving patent rights did 
come into court, the inventor was generally the loser. 
As a result the old practice of keeping the invention 
secret came into some use again. Yet, in the face of 
such discouragement, the list of inventions continued to 
grow and in 1802 a Superintendent of Patents was 
appointed to aid the Executive Department in taking 
proper care of this department. 

In 1836* Congress passed a new statute, repealing all 
the previous acts. This year marks the actual begin- 
ning of our present patent system. A few of the old 
features were retained. One of the most radical changes 
was the creation of the Patent Office, with a Commis- 
sioner of Patents at its head. This new department 
was attached to the Department of State at that time, 
but it now belongs to the Department of the Interior. 
The most important feature was the provision for pre- 
liminary examiners and the establishment of a searching 
system. The search system consists of the examination 
of previous patents to see if the application is really 
new, and still forms one of the chief features of the 
present system. Under this statute there was a board 
of appeal which heard appeals from the decisions of the 
examiners and the Commissioner. Rights were again 
extended to aliens provided that they were residents in 
the United States at least one year and had declared 
their intention of becoming citizens. A standard fee of 
$30 was charged for all citizens and resident aliens. 
Subjects of Great Britain for some reason or other were 
given a special high rate. They had to pay $500. The 
subjects of all other nations were only charged $300. 
* The Patent OflSce was destroyed by fire in 1836. 



8 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

Caveats and reissues were also provided for. An 
extension of seven years after the expiration of the 
original fourteen-year term was provided. The power to 
extend a patent was placed in the hands of a board con- 
sisting of the Commissioner of Patents, the Secretary 
of State, and the Solicitor of the Treasury. The U. S. 
Circuit Courts were given the jurisdiction for patent 
cases. In the following years several minor amend- 
ments were made. A law passed in 1842 made pro- 
visions for design patents. The term of these last was 
to be only seven years. 

The immediate effect of the laws of 1836-1842 was 
to greatly stimulate the interest in patents. The first 
Commissioner of Patents was Henry L. Ellsworth and 
he undoubtedly did much to put the Office on a practical 
basis. The present series of patents started in 1836, 
number 1 being issued to John Ruggles in July of that 
year for a locomotive. Xo attention was paid by the 
Office to the patents which had been issued before, in 
the numbering of the patents. The total number 
issued under the old acts was only 9902. These early 
patents are listed in the first volume of the Patent 
Office Gazette, and the quaint specifications and draw- 
ings of those issued after the year 1836 may be of inter- 
est to some of the readers. Copies of the first volumes 
of the Gazette may still be found in some of the larger 
Public Libraries. 

In 1861 the term was extended from fourteen to 
seventeen years, and the discrimination between United 
States citizens and foreigners was abandoned. A uni- 
form schedule of fees was adopted. A Board of Exam- 
iners was pro\4ded. This board was intermediate 
between the regular examiners and the Commissioner. 
At about this time the southern states seceded and the 
great Civil War ensued. If this war had ended other 



THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PATENT SYSTEM 9 

than it did, among other more important things a great 
tangle of the patent system would have resulted. As 
it was, the Confederacy established a patent office simi- 
lar to ours and actually issued a number of patents, at 
least one hundred and forty-nine. 

After the war a renewed period of activity ensued 
and in 1870 the entire system was revised and codified. 
The acts which followed only made minor changes and 
amendments and have to do more with the details of 
the system.* The law relating to caveats was repealed 
by the act of July 1, 1910, and inventors no longer 
receive this doubtful protection. 

It is interesting to note the increase in the number 
of inventions during the several periods. During the 
period of 1790-1836 (July) the total number of patents 
issued was only 9957. This means that during the 
entire forty-six years of this period a net average of 
about 216 patents were issued each year. Of course, 
the most of these were issued in the latter part of the 
period. From 1836 to 1850 a total of 6980 were issued. 
So, during this short period of fourteen years, the num- 
ber issued each year was more than doubled, making a 
net average of 498 a year. Aside from the surprising 
number of patents granted during these years, some of 
these patents covered a number of very important inven- 
tions. In the year 1850 alone 889 patents were issued. 
From this time on, particularly after the Civil War, the 
modern era of invention began. The number of patents 
issued increased with great rapidity, until in 1893, just 
forty-three years later, patent number 500,000 was 
issued. This period was marked with great inventive 
activity. A number of the modern wonders of inven- 
tion came into existence during those years. The 

* 1871, 1887, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1902. The Patent Office was 
partially destroyed by fire in 1877. 



10 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

people of this period were astonished at the progress 
and some even went so far as to say that there was 
nothing left to invent. But many of those have lived 
to see the fallacy of their predictions. From the year 
1893 patents were received at the Patent Office with 
still greater rapidity, until in 1906 a great total of over 
850,000 had been reached. Nor was invention to stop 
at this point. Just five j^ears later, in 1911, the total 
reached was several thousand over 1,000,000. At 
present each week sees from 500 to 700 patents issued 
and some 20,000 applications are continually awaiting 
action. This seems an enormous number, yet the next 
few years will undoubtedly see a still greater number 
issued. At the present rate of over 30,000 each year, 
it will be but a short time before the 2,000,000 mark 
will have been reached. This last will probably occur 
before the year 1945. Of course, the present patents 
will all have expired long before this time, so that the 
number actually in force at any one period is consider- 
ably less than would at first appear. Thus, at the 
present time (1911-1912), less than one-half of the total 
patents that have been issued since the beginning are 
still in force. The gradually increasing volume of 
patents will very likely keep the percentage in almost 
this same proportion for many years to come. 

From the foregoing it will be seen that the United 
States Patent Law is founded upon a firm statutory 
provision and not the common law. In fact the com- 
mon law affords absolutely no protection to the inventor. 
In its simple frame, a patent really gives the inven- 
tor a monopoly of his invention for a certain time as a 
reward for giving the invention to the public. The very 
word " patent " itself conveys this meaning. It means 
that which is open or disclosed and not that which is 
secret or sealed. It must be a permanent and complete 



THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PATENT SYSTEM 11 

disclosure, in order to be entitled to a patent. The in- 
vention must be fully disclosed and shown to the public 
in an honest, unreserved manner. " Half disclosures, 
dishonest or crooked reservations, either willfully or 
through ignorance, cannot entitle the inventor to a 
patent and means the loss of his patent rights." 

The United States patent laws are to-day, perhaps, 
the most liberal in the world. The inventor is given 
the unrestricted right to his invention for a term of 
seventeen years, without any taxes or additional fees. 
No foreign country offers as much to the inventor as the 
United States does. The result is that the United 
States leads the world in invention. None of the 
foreign countries can even compare with the United 
States in this respect. France, the nearest competitor, 
has less than one-half as many licensed inventions to 
her credit. Great Britain is a close third. Germany, 
Belgium, Canada, Italy and Sardinia, Austria-Hungary, 
and the remaining foreign countries follow in a decreas- 
ing line. Many of these countries have had greater 
opportunities to lead than the United States, but any 
two of them cannot equal the United States to-day. 

The importance of inventions and the need of liberal 
patent laws is well established. The two are essential 
to the very progress of a nation. All civilization is 
directly dependent upon invention and discovery. This 
being true, it is with much pride that a citizen may 
point to the United States as the leading nation in 
invention as well as in many other fields. 



CHAPTER II 
THE PATENT OFFICE 

Passing from the brief record of the history", let us 
consider the present organization of the Patent Office. 

The Patent Office is a very comprehensive organiza- 
tion. The Commissioner of Patents is at the head of 
the Ust of officers, examiners-in-chief, examiners, clerks, 
chiefs of di^dsion, translator, librarian, draftsman, copy- 
ists, messengers, laborers, and others. He is assisted by 
a first assistant commissioner, an assistant commissioner, 
a chief clerk, and three examiners-in-chief, as well as 
the long list of lesser officers and employees. The total 
appropriation for salaries for the officers and employees 
of the Patent Office is one million two hundred and 
eighty-six thousand four hundred and ten dollars.* 
Of this amount the commissioner receives only five 
thousand dollars per year, the first assistant commis- 
sioner, four thousand five hundred dollars, the assistant 
commissioner, three thousand five hundred dollars; 
the chief clerk three thousand dollars, and the others 
corresponding and lesser amounts. When it is considered 
that these same men could earn several times this amount 
in private life, as patent attorneys and counsellors, and 
the great responsibility assumed, the smallness of the 
sum is apparent. This is even more marked in the case 
of the examiners and assistant examiners who receive 
still less remuneration. The latter are particularly 
fitted to become patent attorneys after their experience 
in the office. Thus, the patent attorney staff of a large 

* Act of June 17, 1910. 
12 



THE PATENT OFFICE 13 

electrical corporation is made up almost exclusively of 
former examiners. 

All communications are required to be addressed to 
the Commissioner of Patents. Thousands of these 
communications are received daily. It is not the inten- 
tion of the author to give a complete record of all the 
features and details of the Patent Office organization 
but there are certain features with which the reader 
should be familiar. 

In the first place matters of form should always be 
complied with in transacting business with the Patent 
Office. Thus, if the foregoing formality should be dis- 
regarded and a communication addressed to some individ- 
ual officer, it will very likely be returned to the sender. 
This is only one illustration of the point. 

The Office will not answer certain kinds of inquiries, 
such as those asking about the patentability of an in- 
vention before the application is filed, questions con- 
cerning patents of a special class that have already been 
issued with the object of ascertaining whether or not 
certain inventions have been patented, etc. It may 
also be remarked in this connection that the Patent 
Office does not make any so-called preliminary searches 
for an inventor to ascertain and inform him whether 
or not his invention is novel. 

It is thus seen that the applicant himself is responsible 
for actions taken in applying for patents. Of course 
the greater part of this responsibility can be shifted 
onto an attorney (see chapter on Attorneys), but the 
applicant still retains considerable liability. 

An inventor may be advised as to the propriety of 
applying for a patent by his attorney or other persons 
but he must decide for himself whether or not it is 
advisable (see chapter on Patentability). 

Of course, the Office with its records and models as 



14 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

well as copies of patents and digests is open to the in- 
ventor as are also the printed reports. However, in 
the majority of cases it is not very conA^enient for the 
inventor to attend to this part of the business, so an 
expert or an attorney must be engaged. 

The inventor is denied access to pending applications, 
filed applications, examiners' digests, and other papers 
which are kept in secrecy. It is thus apparent that an 
inventor may expect but little assistance from the 
Office before he files his application. 

Publications. — The publications of the most use to 
an inventor are: 

The Official Gazette which is issued weekly and which 
contains digests of all the patents issued for that week 
(the first five claims and generally one illustration), as 
well as a list of the trade marks and prints registered, 
patent decisions, index, and other items. The sub- 
scription price is $5.00 per year and single copies cost 
10 cents each. 

Printed copies of patents. A copy of the specifica- 
tion, claims, and in most cases the drawings. The cost 
of each copy is only 5 cents. 

The rules of practice, containing the fixed rules of 
the Office, which every inventor should have. This 
may be obtained gratis. 

Patent laws, with annotations, a somewhat technical 
pamphlet which ma}^ also be obtained gratis. 

In addition to the foregoing there are many bound vol- 
umes of decisions, patents, and drawings, as well as leaflets. 

The Patent Office puhlications have been recently trans- 
ferred to the Superintendent of Documents and may be 
obtained from him by addressing The Superintendent 
of Documents, Washington, D. C. 

Formerly the majority of the publications were ob- 
tainable directly from the Patent Office. 



THE PATENT OFFICE 15 

The Office does not keep printed copies of foreign 
patents for sale. 

A New Patent Office Needed. — In spite of the 
enormous expenditure required to conduct its busi- 
ness, the Patent Office to-day has a surplus of some 
seven millions of dollars to its credit. It is one of 
the very few self-supporting branches of the Govern- 
ment. However, in the midst of this apparent pros- 
perity, the Patent Office appears to be deteriorating. 
The building is altogether too small to care for the 
present demands upon it. The clerks are crowded 
in dark rooms, which are piled high with documents 
and the records have accumulated in a disorderly 
condition. 

The models have been crowded out of the building 
for the most part and placed in storage places. As the 
Office now exists there is a considerable fire hazard. 
The constantly increasing volume of documents as well 
as the increasing business will of course not help matters. 
Recent agitation has stirred up the need of a new build- 
ing and since the new building will not require an 
expenditure by Congress it seems that the situation 
should receive early relief. The present Commissioner 
of Patents has been particularly active in urging a new 
building. This is a matter of great importance to 
inventors and should receive earnest support. A com- 
mission was given $10,000 by Congress for the purpose 
of investigating the Patent Office in 1912 but was 
hampered in its work by limited funds and lack of a 
technical staff. 

Responsibility of Officials in General. — The Patent 
Office is not entirely independent but belongs to the 
Department of the Interior. The Commissioner and 
the Chief Clerk are bonded officials. The Commis- 
sioner is required to give a bond of $10,000 with surety 



16 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

and the Chief Clerk $5,000 with surety to the Treasurer 
of the United States. 

There is sometimes a doubt in the minds of certain 
inventors as to whether it is safe to disclose their inven- 
tions to the Office employees. Time has established the 
fact that their misgivings are unfounded. The fore- 
going item is a still further insurance. In fact there 
would be little chance for an employee to appropriate 
an applicant's idea or to be influenced against an in- 
dividual by some outside person. All of the officers 
and employees are incapable of either acquiring or 
taking, directly or indirectly, except by inheritance or 
bequest, any right or interest in any patent issued by 
the Office, during the time for which they hold their 
appointments. 

There have been rumors of practices which are not com- 
mendable — of a lobby to waylay valuable applications — ■ 
of collusion with employees — but such rumors have not 
been substantiated. 

The inventor, then, may have no cause to worry in 
this respect. In fact, there has been only one case of 
record in which an employee was dishonest in this 
respect, and the case was speedily discovered and the 
employee sent to prison. 

For any of the readers who may desire to become 
examiners in the Patent Office it is stated that this 
branch of the service is under the United States Civil 
Service Commission and that particulars may be ob- 
tained gratis by addressing the Commission at Washing- 
ton, D. C. Anyone over twenty years of age who can 
pass the requirements is eligible to appointment as 
an assistant examiner. The examination is very rigid 
and covers three days of six hours each. As a result the 
examiners are all men of high attainments. Further 
promotion then occurs within the office and leads to 



THE PATENT OFFICE 17 

the position of Commissioner or one of the other high 
positions. 

The Search System. — The United States is one of 
the leading countries in the matter of examination into 
the novelty of an invention before allowing a patent 
for the same. The work of examination is divided into 
forty-three divisions at the present time, each having 
to do with a certain class of inventions. The status of 
each division is given weekly in the Official Gazette. 
Many of the divisions are months behind in their work, 
while others are nearly up-to-date. The main classes 
are further divided and subdivided into many sub- 
classes, and an application can generally be classified 
without much difficulty. All printed matter, books, 
magazines, foreign patents, and other references which 
can anticipate an invention are arranged in an accessible 
manner so that a list of references for a given case can 
be readily found if they exist. The records are not 
infallible, however, and in a few cases are not even 
complete, but for the most part the search is very accu- 
rate and complete. In addition to the search into the 
novelty of an application a search is also made of any 
similar cases on file to determine if they may be re- 
ferred to or held to embrace the application under 
examination. The applicant is required to clearly de- 
fine his invention so as to distinguish it from references 
of record. Claims which may be interpreted to include 
any references on record are generally rejected. The 
matter of claims will receive attention later. 

At the present time the search system is far from perfect 
because there is no complete classification of all the patents 
which have been issued and because the work of properly 
handling all of the cases is hampered by inadequate facili- 
ties, examining force, and funds. 



CHAPTER III 

PATENT ATTORNEYS 

The Need of an Attorney. — As was pointed out in the 
preface, it is not the intention of this book to make the 
inventor his own attorney. There is a saying which 
attorneys hke to quote at times which runs something 
hke this, 

"He who tries to be his own lawyer has a fool for counsel." 

It might be better to say that one unfamihar with 
patent procedure who tries to be his own lawyer has an 
unwise man for counsel. No one can refute the fact 
that an inveiitor who is also famihar with patent pro- 
cedure and skillful in presenting an application has a 
distinct advantage over other inventors who must 
depend entirely upon an attorney, and that he may 
present his own case better in many cases than an 
attorney. 

Of course the chief object of an inventor should be to 
invent and he is likely to be too busy inventing to take 
the time and trouble to present his own case. How- 
ever, a knowledge of patent matters cannot help being 
an aid to a successful inventor. 

In the first place, an inventor who understands patent 
matters can present his case to an attorney much better 
than one who does not. He is better able to point out 
the novelty and merits of his case, and to suggest strong 
claims in many cases. Then too, he is able to under- 
stand the references '' dug-up " in a preliminary search, 
to realize the strength or weaknesses in the claims which 

18 



PATENT ATTORNEYS 19 

he is allowed, to decide whether a claim will be of value, 
to take the proper precautions to establish priority, 
and many other items. 

To be sure, there is the case of the so-called poor 
inventor. To him it seems that lack of funds will force 
him to present his own case. Of course, there is the 
alternative of assigning the whole or a large part of the 
invention to some financial supporter, but there are 
many who are reluctant to do so. The path of the poor 
inventor is indeed a hard one. Even if the difficulties 
are surmounted and the patent is obtained, the difficul- 
ties generally begin all over again when he attempts to 
sell or market the invention. Of course, this is not in- 
tended to discourage any inventor and even then it is 
doubtful if he could be discouraged. 

It is not difficult to trace the progress of an applica- 
tion which is presented by an inexperienced person. 
The mistakes in matters of form, the delays, the pro- 
lixity in the claims, the inability to appreciate the sig- 
nificance of certain references and non-application of 
others, the inability to tell the necessary and omit the 
unnecessary portions, all these and others are common 
occurrences and causes of failure. Of course, a simple 
case is less likely to fail than a complex one. Imagine 
how an inventor would get along in a divisional case, 
or in interference proceedings without counsel! 

From the foregoing some readers might be led to con- 
clude that the attorneys had somehow influenced the 
paragraphs in their favor. The viewpoint is unpreju- 
diced and merely shows the task which is taken when an 
unskilled person attempts to present his own case. Of 
course it does not follow that he must fail in the attempt. 
He may even make a big success. In the rules of prac- 
tice the Patent Office itself recommends that an attor- 
ney be employed, and goes on to say, " as the value of 



20 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

patents depends largely upon the skillful preparation of 
the specification and claims." 

How true this last statement is! Under the present 
method of Patent Procedure, the value of a patent does 
not depend upon the merits or novelty of an invention 
as much as it does upon the skillful preparation of the 
specification and claims and the prosecution of the appli- 
cation. This may appear unfair but it is nevertheless 
true. The reason will appear later when the construc- 
tion of the specification and claims is discussed. 

Selecting an Attorney. — It is of importance to the 
inventor that he should have a competent attorney to 
present his case. In view of the foregoing paragraphs 
and remembering that there are some sixty thousand 
applications more or less filed each year it is little wonder 
that these patent attorneys should form a numerous 
and apparently prosperous class in themselves. 

How, then, is an inventor to select an attorney? 
Should he select a local or a Washington attorney? 
These and other questions must be answered by the 
individual. The Patent Office does not, of course, 
recommend any particular attorneys. A register of 
attorneys, however, is published and may be obtained 
from the Superintendent of Documents for twenty cents. 
In this register the names of all persons who are entitled 
to represent applicants are kept. It is not necessary 
that a person be an attorney-at-law in order to be 
registered. It may be remarked that while this register 
is intended to be a guide to inventors, it is an open secret 
among attorneys that there are a few names on the 
record which ought not to be there. This is an unfor- 
tunate circumstance and should be remedied. 

While it is not the intention of these paragraphs to 
'' knock," it is felt that the reader should be warned 
against certain '' Bargain-advertising Concerns," who 



PATENT ATTORNEYS 21 

make alluring offers. Indeed some of these concerns 
have advertisements and literature which are especially 
alluring. " Patent obtained or your money returned, 
bargain rates, vague assurances, etc.," are the more 
common offers that are made. While these concerns 
undoubtedly obtain a number of valuable patents, the 
methods which are often employed are unprofessional 
to say the least. Who can commend concerns which 
offer so much a head for names of inventors who become 
their clients? Certain concerns advertise that they 
make " Free Searches," and offer guarantees of patenta- 
bility. There is no doubt that some inventors are bene- 
fited by such an arrangement, but there are a goodly 
number, on the other hand, who are misled into spending 
considerable time and money. An inventor who writes 
to one of those concerns is quite likely to receive some 
such reply as this: 

" We find that there are several patents similar to 
yours but since many of our clients are often able to 
make certain changes and thus obtain a patent we will 
forward copies of these patents to you upon the receipt 
of $ . You are of course aware that up to the present 
time we have acted for you without compensation." 

There seems to be a tendency on the part of some 
inventors to distrust patent attorneys, as a result of 
the few who have caused the trouble. Indeed it ap- 
pears that at times the situation has been almost as 
serious as the cases of the pension attorneys some years 
ago. The author recalls the time when the names of 
certain attorneys were carried in the Gazette as a 
warning against their unreliability. Attorneys who 
were disbarred from practice before the Patent Office 
under one name often resumed practice under an- 
other name and so on. At the present time it is 
not definitely known that any serious fraud exists in 



22 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

this respect, though certain cases are certainly open to 
suspicion. 

In justice to the great number of reliable attorneys 
it may be said that they work honestly and conscien- 
tiously for their clients and do everything possible to 
protect the interests of the inventors whom they repre- 
sent. Of course, there is the other extreme, namely, 
those few attorneys who charge what seems to be almost 
extortionate fees, but in this respect, every man has a 
right to set his own value upon his services. 

The government takes considerable care to protect 
the inventors from incompetent attorneys, but of course 
some continue to flourish in spite of all. As an example 
of this an amendment to paragraph 22 of the rules of 
practice is quoted below. 

'' (d) The Secretary of the Interior may, after notice 
and opportunity for a hearing, suspend or exclude from 
further practice before the Patent Office any person, 
firm, corporation, or association shown to be incom- 
petent, disreputable, or who refuses to comply with the 
rules and regulations thereof, or who shall, with intent 
to defraud, in any manner deceive, mislead, or threaten 
any claimant or prospective claimant, by word, circular, 
letter, or by advertisement, or by guaranteeing therein 
the successful prosecution of any application for patent 
or the procurement of any patent, or which word, cir- 
cular, letter, or advertisement shall contain therein any 
false promise or misleading representation." (Sec. 5, 
act approved July 4, 1884.) 

Relation of the Attorney to the Inventor. — The in- 
ventor or the assignee of the whole interest upon convey- 
ing the power of attorney to an attorney practically 
gives the whole care of the case to him. The attorney 
then conducts all of the correspondence with the Patent 
Office generally to the exclusion of the inventor and 



PATENT ATTORNEYS 23 

information concerning the progress of the case must 
come to the inventor second hand. 

There is, then, every need for trust and confidence 
in the attorney. When the attorney can be interviewed 
personally this is much easier than when correspondence 
alone must be relied upon. Of course, the inventor may 
revoke the powers of attorney at any time if need be. 
He is thus doubly protected. 

Whenever possible, it is generally advisable to employ 
the services of an attorney who is particularly skilled 
in caring for cases of the particular class to which the 
invention may belong. In fact, attorneys who also have 
mechanical ability are the better fitted to care for many 
cases. 

The Value of the Attorney. — In general the need of 
an attorney has already been pointed out. It is a well- 
known fact that there are some attorneys who are not 
of high efficiency in caring for their clients' applications, 
not because of any dishonesty, but because of the gen- 
eral inability to give the case proper care and treatment. 
In fact, some of the cases which reach the abandonment 
stage in the hands of certain attorneys are good proof 
of the foregoing statement. 

Generally speaking, a case should be completed within 
a short time, but of course the indiscriminate canceling 
of claims and similar methods are not commendable. 
Certain attorneys make a practice of so-called " rush- 
work " and care for a great number of cases in a given 
time by this method. The crowding of work cannot 
but result in some careless work, although the experi- 
ence of the attorney may be such that both rapidity and 
accuracy are possible. 

As has been pointed out, the government takes con- 
siderable precaution to protect the inventor from dis- 
reputable persons. It does not, however, require any 



24 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

bond from attorneys at the present time and since the 
chances of prosecution are somewhat remote there are 
still some attorneys of this class who continue to flourish. 
It is hoped that the standard of all Patent Attorneys 
will soon be put upon the plane of the higher class and 
above reproach or suspicion. 

The Duty of the Attorney. — In accepting a case the 
attorney takes considerable responsibility and it is his 
duty to attend to it in confidence and trust. The in- 
ventor should be fully informed of the probable com- 
mercial value of the invention, of the present state of 
the art and the significance of prior patents in the same 
class, and the probability of obtaining a patent of real 
worth. 

When this is done, the waste of money and time in 
obtaining patents of little or no use will be minimized. 
It is a well-known fact that a considerable number of 
worthless patents are instigated and encouraged by cer- 
tain attorneys who have no further interest than the 
resulting fees. The inventor is often made to believe 
that his invention will be of impossible value and is 
blinded to the commercial aspect of his invention. 

It often happens that the inventor is led into believ- 
ing that the patent which is obtained is a sure protection 
for his entire machine, when in reality it merely covers 
some nonessential details. In this connection the con- 
cerns who advertise that they obtain patents or return 
fees are particularly active. To attorneys it is compara- 
tively easy to obtain a claim or two on some detail 
feature of an invention, even if it is otherwise antici- 
pated by references of record. In fact, in many cases 
the inventor is advised to make minor changes in order 
to facilitate the obtainance of such patents. It is 
through these and similar methods that the patent 
office is padded with superfluous patents. The only 



PATENT ATTORNEYS 25 

profits which accrue in such cases are those which the 
attorney obtains as fees. 

The confidence and trust in an attorney is of the ut- 
most importance and should be fully reciprocated. No 
one should confide in any of the scheme attorneys. It 
is sometimes difficult to distinguish between reliable 
and unreliable attorneys. Some of those who make 
great promises show long lists of printed references, 
make the greatest offers of free services, warn the inven- 
tor against fraudulent concerns, make apparently iron- 
clad contracts, and resort to similar plans, are the 
ones who are to be avoided. They can generally be 
discovered by evidences of bad faith, such as direct 
contradictions in their literature and circulars, condem- 
nation of the very practices which they themselves 
employ, misleading statements, and other earmarks. 
The whole matter is quite completely covered by the 
digest from a famous disbarment case, which will be 
found in the appendix. 

Patent Experts 

Patent experts are engineers, chemists, and technicians 
who furnish legal minds with technical advice, particu- 
larly in court. 

Experting has come into some disrepute by reason of 
the abuses to which it has been put by some parties to 
increase the cost and time required for suits and to dis- 
tort the facts of the case. Experts receive some $25 to 
$100 a day in court. Some day, perhaps, the pro- 
cedure will be changed so that the Court will have the 
benefits of impartial professional experts of high honor 
and rigorous morals. 



CHAPTER IV 
THE GERMS OF INVENTION 

The Inventor. — There may be some doubt as to what 
an inventor really is. In the ideal sense he is a creator 
of a new utility, a man who has successfully applied 
his knowledge and skill to the origination of a new ma- 
chine or process or art or an improvement thereof. From 
the Patent Office point of view, however, he is not an 
inventor until the alleged claims in his application are 
allowed, and his invention is always spoken of as an 
alleged invention. If a still more critical view is taken, 
namely the commercial view, he is one who creates 
successful inventions. 

It is generally conceded that the ability to invent must 
be inborn in the individual although it may be acquired 
through training. As stated in the beginning of Chap- 
ter I every person has some inborn ability although it 
is generally so stunted through disuse that it is of little 
availability. Of course there are some inventors whose 
senses are constantly alive to the task of inventing and 
who cannot help inventing. Again, there must be 
something more than just the mere idea to make a 
successful invention, and the inventor who stops at this 
point often fails. Inventors, then, must carry out as 
well as conceive new ideas. 

With some exceptions, the most effective inventors are 
men between the ages of 20 and 35. Invention is full 
of romance. Perhaps it is the very stories of success 
which have made inventing so alluring. 

Inventors may be divided into two classes, those who 
are guided or trained and those who are not guided or 

26 



THE GERMS OF INVENTION 27 

trained. The chief difference between the two is that 
the former are the successful inventors as a whole and 
the latter are the unsuccessful ones for the most part. 
Since the first class is the more desirable, let us consider 
some of the points which control the inventions of 
those who are in this class. 

The Elements of Success. — Inventors of the first 
class apply scientific principles to practical purposes. 
The method employed may be divided into two classes, 
the inductive and the deductive. By the inductive 
method known data and facts are classified and prac- 
tical principles are evolved by continual experiment and 
elimination. The development of the incandescent 
electric light is a good example of this method. By the 
deductive method the desired invention and its prin- 
ciples are known and all that remains to be found is the 
practical means and methods of producing the known 
result. Either or both methods are employed. The 
invention of color photography may be taken to illus- 
trate the combined methods. It was known that 
shadow images of an object were different when taken 
on a plate through different colored filters in front of 
the lens and that this method could be utilized to pro- 
duce colored photographs. The deductive method was 
then applied to find the practical means for carrying out 
the result. The inductive method was employed to 
evolve the final method from a classification of the known 
facts and principles. 

Inventors of the first class are familiar with condi- 
tions and limitations of inventions and are able from 
their study of other inventions to carry out the desired 
idea. The other class, on the other hand, go about the 
task without a definite idea of the result desired or prior 
attempts at a solution and trust to luck to find or dis- 
cover the desired means. The latter method, to be sure, 



28 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

is often successful and some of the biggest inventions 
have been made by it, but, on the other hand, it is the 
least direct and the most hazardous method since, as has 
been proved again and again, it is much easier to miss 
than to hit. Inventors of the latter class are largely 
those who invent articles of little utility and which are 
not urgently needed by the people. 

Indeed, as has often been said, necessity is the true 
cause of a real invention. Everybody may know the 
need but only an inventor can fill the desired want. 
To illustrate: It was known that it would be very con- 
venient to have a razor which could be used with safety 
by an unskilled person and that such a razor was in 
demand. Unless inventors had worked out the method 
and details to satisfy the need it would only remain as 
a need until some other inventor took up the problem. 
Thus, at the present time, it is generally known that 
there is an urgent need for a cheap substitute for plat- 
inum which will be equal or superior to it for all pur- 
poses, but only an inventor can supply the substitute. 
We see then that an inventor differs from the ordinary 
person in that, besides having a desirable idea, he con- 
ceives the means for carrying it out. An inventor, then, 
should study the public and watch for its needs and in 
this manner he can avoid inventing useless inventions. 
While a part of the readers are undoubtedly inventors 
and will not perhaps need to be reminded of the first 
principles of inventing it is desirable to outline them for 
those who would like to become successful inventors. 

Methods of Attack. — A keen observation and ability 
to see the essential items is of the greatest value. It 
has already been pointed out that the public should be 
studied before inventing something which the public 
will need. In addition to this precaution it is necessary 
to thoroughly learn the difficulties which stand in the 



THE GERMS OF INVENTION 29 

way of the result and to have confidence and self-reliance 
to begin the attack. For this purpose a knowledge of 
previous attempts at the same problem is almost indis- 
pensable. 

Having gathered all the facts which are possible in 
the case, the problem is often reduced to the process 
of elimination and of surmounting the defects of previ- 
ous attempts. The success of the inventor will depend 
largely on his ability and his previous training. Thus 
an inventor who had previously invented a substitute 
for rubber or one who was well versed in metallurgy 
would naturally have a great advantage in attacking 
the new problem of finding the substitute for platinum. 
Similar processes would be involved and mistakes 
formerly made would then be avoided. Continuing 
with this same example, let us suppose that in spite of 
resolute and determined attack the problem still remains 
unsolved.' Some inventors are apt to become too 
deeply interested in a single subject of this kind and to 
work too long on what may be an impossible idea. In 
such a case, it is advisable to give up the subject for 
a time and to attack other and more varied subjects. 
In any case the big problem can always be taken up 
again and the mind is thus kept at an even balance. 
Then, too, success in varied enterprises may aid finan- 
cially as well as mentally toward the realization of the 
main pursuit. Inventing is brain work and the process 
demands a well-balanced mind. 

Suppose that the great idea finally comes. To some 
it may come suddenly and without any great effort. 
It may so happen, that the mind will be temporarily 
diverted upon a slight phenomena or even a different 
subject, when it will suddenly seize upon the similarity 
of the cases and the adaptability to the problem. It 
is a peculiar fact that an inventor may work for years 



30 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

upon a subject only to succeed in an unexpected man- 
ner through some trivial circumstance. Such a success 
could not be called accidental because it is the result 
of constant observation and close association with the 
subject. 

Now in the case of the inventor who has previously 
succeeded in finding a substitute for rubber, it is not 
unlikely that the former success will suggest the solu- 
tion of the new problem and that the result will be ob- 
tained by applying the old and well-known facts to the 
new case. 

Or, again, an independent worker who had perhaps 
never thought of producing the desired substitute before, 
might arrive at the solution while engaged in an entirely 
different pursuit. Thus, some scientist in studying the 
expansion of metals or the standardization of weights 
might discover the desired substitute. Such a process 
has actually happened and is illustrated by the gas 
mantle of Welsbach, the nitro-explosives of Noble, and 
the invention of vulcanized rubber. In each case the 
inventor was engaged in a separate pursuit when the 
discovery was made. In the case of the gas mantle, 
Welsbach was engaged in experiments with certain rare 
earths when he noticed the peculiar incandescence of 
certain materials when held in the flame of a Bunsen 
burner. His inventive mind led him to further experi- 
ments and suggested the impregnation of fabrics with 
the incandescent material. The gas mantle was finally 
evolved out of the mass of his experiments. Such ex- 
amples serve as stimulants for future inventors and 
it is for this reason that the invention of the crimped 
hair pin and the humped hook are mentioned. 

As the story goes, the invention of these big successes 
was due to an observing Philadelphia man who noticed 
the manipulations of his wife in bending the straight 



THE GERMS OF INVENTION 31 

hair pins to make them stick, and who, in noticing 
that ordinary hooks unhook, also conceived the idea of 
providing them with a hump. 

Even the most trivial thing is worthy the notice of 
an inventor and the foregoing example certainly shows 
that big results can be obtained from little things. At 
this point it occurs that one man's success is often the 
stimulus for duplication and imitation. While such 
imitation and duplication often result in big improve- 
ments and cannot be condemned, it is well to point 
out that there is apt to be altogether too much duplica- 
tion and imitation for which there is no demand and 
which only lead to failure. The recent success of the 
safety razor serves to illustrate this point. Although 
there have been literally hundreds of patents obtained 
for improvements on safety razors and although there 
are still a number patented each week, it is a significant 
fact that only a comparative few of these are actually 
marketed and that a number of new concerns based 
on such razor patents have recently failed while the 
original companies continue to succeed. This illustra- 
tion also recalls another one, the nonrefillable bottle, 
which has probably never been successfully marketed 
and over which many inventors have racked their brains 
and through which many attorneys have received fees 
and through which inventors continue to rack their 
brains and through which attorneys will continue, etc. 
The patents for nonrefillable bottles still continue and 
will probably never cease and merely serve to illustrate 
the useless duplication and also one subject that it is 
not advisable to attack. Of course, if the perfect cheap 
bottle is finally evolved, much of the work will be 
justified, but no profit will accrue directly to the hundreds 
of patentees who have worked on the subject. 

As has been pointed out, while working on a given 



32 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

subject, one experiment will often bring up a new sub- 
ject and it requires a good observer to pick out the 
essential points. The first idea is apt to be crude and 
it generally requires much work to trim it to a practical 
shape. Each individual worker has his own methods 
of attack and each in turn has a varying per cent of 
success. 

The successful inventor does not stop with the crude 
idea; in most cases he merely begins at this point. As 
has been said, experience and previous training are the 
biggest assets at this stage. Then, too, ability to picture 
the final result, to see all the details in the mind's eye, 
and the ability to conceive the complete idea are of the 
utmost importance. It is at this point that the non- 
practicability of an idea may appear to an inventor 
which would not ordinarily appear until long after- 
wards. 

Some inventors go through a complete preparation 
process, including reading of available matter on the 
subject, examination of previous patent records, etc., 
before beginning the actual attack on the subject. 
Other inventors omit such preliminary work, often to 
their future regret, and apply the first idea directly to 
a model. Some even start out by making a full-sized 
embodiment of the crude idea. While the latter method 
is generally quite expensive, it offers the advantage of 
showing the short-comings of the device in a much 
clearer manner than an ordinary intellect could other- 
wise figure out. Of course, ability to draw, even poor 
ability to draw, combined with good intelligence, offers 
a still shorter method to the final result. In fact, it is 
a good plan to embody every idea in a sketch or a word 
picture. 

When the model method is adopted the inventor's 
task becomes one of eUmination and continual working 



THE GERMS OF INVENTION 33 

to eliminate the faults. This may be a slow and dis- 
couraging process and continued unsuccessful attempts 
may even lead to a depression on the inventive faculty. 
In such a case it is well to change to another subject, 
temporarily at least, as has already been suggested. 

The item of '^ reduction to practice " is the stumbling 
block of many inventors and often leads to difficulties 
later. This will be explained in another chapter. 
Models offer a convenient method of applying the idea 
preliminary to the actual full-sized model. When experi- 
ments are conducted on a small scale great care must be 
taken to avoid unequal conditions and exaggeration of 
any particular items. For example, the magnetic trac- 
tion scheme in which the car wheels were held to the 
track by magnets worked fine as the model indicated 
but utterly failed in practice. The reason was that 
the relative sizes of the wheels and the track were greatly 
exaggerated in the model (fraudulently in this case) 
and the actual ' conditions were not kept in a rational 
balance. We might point out that this is a common 
occurrence and that the failure of a full-sized model, 
after the success of a small one, can generally be traced 
to an unbalanced ratio of parts. 

Another common cause of failure is the over-enthusi- 
asm and optimism of some inventors and the resulting 
inability to see the faults in their inventions. In fact, 
it is just as important to be able to pick out the faults 
as it is to invent the machine with the faults. The 
correction of the faults is a separate problem or a com- 
plex problem in many cases and while it may appear 
superfluous it should be remembered that unless the 
original inventor perfects the device, some other inven- 
tor probably will. The inventors who finally evolve 
the perfected invention whether they are the origina- 
tors or not, are the ones who generally reap the rewards. 



34 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

Joint Inventors. — It is with the latter object that 
two or more inventors will often work together, the 
one to improve what the other conceives and in this 
manner produce a perfected invention which would 
not otherwise be possible. Of course there are other 
conditions which may result in a joint invention and 
some of these will be discussed later. 

Development Before Application 

If suitable precautions are taken, one loses nothing by 
taking the necessary time to develop the mvention, make 
and try embodiments of it, make preliminary examina- 
tions and to bring the invention to a practical, tangible 
form. The law allows all the time necessary for experi- 
mental purposes and also two years but not a day more 
for public use. To run this course, however, the inventor 
must protect his rights by observing iron-clad precautions. 
He must be diligent in his experimental development 
and persistent. He must at every step keep a witnessed 
log of the invention, witnessed drawings, witnessed tests, 
witnessed models and photographs. 

Suppose another files an application for the same in- 
vention before you do. What then? 

The so-called burden of proof is on you, to be sure, but 
if you are the first inventor and can prove it you can carry 
the load, provided of course that your financial condition 
permits you to maintain your rights. The other applicant 
cannot prevail against you if you were the first to reduce 
the invention to practice even if he can show that he 
thought of the invention first, provided of course that 
he did not make an operative model. 



CHAPTER V 
THE FIELDS OF INVENTION 

According to the patent laws, a patent may be ob- 
tained by any person (man, woman, or child, black or 
white, rich or poor, etc.) who has invented or dis- 
covered any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, 
or composition of matter, or any new and useful im- 
provement thereof, not known or used by others in this 
country before his invention or discovery thereof, and 
not patented or described in any printed publication 
in this or an}^ foreign country before his invention or 
discovery thereof, or more than two years prior to his 
application, and not patented in a country foreign to 
the United States on an application filed more than 
twelve months before his application, and not in public 
use or on sale in the United States for more than two 
years prior to his application, unless the same is proved 
to have been abandoned, upon payment of fees required 
by law and other due proceedings had. 

This, in its simple frame, is the fundamental limit to 
the fields of invention for which patents may be ob- 
tained. To be sure, there are numerous other require- 
ments, written and unwritten, which stand in front of 
certain classes of invention and the details will be dis- 
cussed later. Without considering the details let us 
take up the several classes of invention mentioned, 
and the subclasses. 

A complete, or even an approximately complete list 
of possible classes of inventions is impossible for the 
very fact that the fields of invention are unlimited and 

35 



36 



INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 



constantl}^ expanding. Indeed, this is shown by the 
shifting of subclasses in the Patent Office to keep up 
with the increasing demands. A general classifica- 
tion, as maintained by the Patent Office, is given on 
pages 36, 37, 38. 

GENERAL CLASSIFICATION 



Room 
No. 



Divisions and subjects of invention 



313 
128 

173 

232 



167 

318 

312 



131 

142 

235 
154 

324 
329 



1. Fences; Harrows and Diggers; Plows; Seeders 
and Planters; Trees; Plants, and Flowers. 

2. Bee Culture; Dairy; Label Pasting and Paper 
Hanging; Paper Files and Binders; Pneumatic Des- 
patch; Pneumatics; Presses; Store-Service; Tobacco. 

3. Annealing and Tempering; Electric Heating and 
Rheostats; Electrochemistry; Metal-Founding; Aletal- 
lurgy; Shaping Fluid Metal. 

4. Bridges; Conveyers; Cranes and Derricks; Ex- 
cavating; Hoisting; Hydraulic Engineering; Loading 
and Unloading; Metallic Building Structures. 

5. Bookbinding; Harvesters; Jewelrj^; Music. 

6. Bleaching and Dyeing; Chemicals; Explosives; 
Fertilizers; Medicines; Preserving; Sugar and Salt. 

7. Educational Appliances; Clutches; Games and 
Toys; Mechanical Motors; Nut and Bolt Locks; Op- 
tics; Velocipedes. 

8. Beds; Chairs; Furniture; Kitchen and Table 
Articles; Store Furniture; Supports. 

9. Air and Gas Pumps; Fluid-pressure Regulators; 
Hydraulic Motors; Pumps; Wind-Wheels. 

10. Carriages and Wagons. 

11. Boot and Shoe Making; Boots, Shoes, and Leg- 
gings; Button, Eyelet, and Rivet Setting; Harness; 
Leather Manufactures; Nailing and Stapling; Whips 
and Whip Apparatus. 

12. Elevators; Journal-Boxes, Pulleys, and Shaft- 
ing; Lubrication; Machine Elements. 

Arms, Projectiles, and Explosive Charges, Mak- 
Bolt, Nail, Nut, Rivet, and Screw Making; Boring 
Drilling; Button Making; Chain, Staple, and 
Horseshoe Making; Driven, Headed, and Screw-thread- 
ed Fastenings; Gear Cutting, Milling, and Planing; 
Metal Drawing; Metal Forging and Welding; Metal 
Rolling; Metal Tools and Implements, Making; Metal 
Working; Needle and Pin Making; Turning. 



13. 

ing; 
and 



THE FIELDS OF INVENTION 37 



■KT^ Divisions and subjects of invention 



307 14. Compound Tools; Cutting and Punching Sheets 
and Bars; Farriery; Metal-Bending; Metal-Ornament- 
ing; Sheet-metal Ware, Making; Tools; Wire Fabrics 
and Structure; Wire-Working. 

308 15. Bread, Pastry, and Confection Making; Coat- 
ing; Fuel; Glass; Laminated Fabrics and Analogous 
Manufactures; Liquid Coating Compositions; Paper 
Making and Fiber Liberation; Plastic Block and Earth- 
enware Apparatus; Plastic Compositions; Plastics. 

109 16. Telegraphy; Telephony. 

303 17. Matrix Making; Paper Manufactures; Printing; 

Type-bar Making. 

327 18. Injectors and Ejectors; Miscellaneous Heat- 

engine Plants; Steam and Vacuum Pumps; Steam- 
Boilers; Steam-Engines; Steam-engine Valves. 

236 19. Dampers, Automatic; Furnaces; Heat-distrib- 

uting Systems; Stoves and Furnaces. 

179 20. Artificial Limbs; Builders' Hardware; Dentistry; 

Locks and Latches; Safes; Undertaking. 

112 21. Brakes and Gins; Carding; Cloth-Finishing; 

Cordage; Felt and Fur; Knitting and Netting; Silk; 
Spinning; Weaving; Winding and Reeling. 

249 22. Aeronautics; Air-Guns, Catapults, and Targets; 

Ammunition and Explosive Devices; Boats and Buoys; 
Firearms; Marine Propulsion; Ordinance; Ships. 

379 23. Acoustics; Coin-Handling; Horology; Recorders; 

Registers; Time-controlling Mechanism. 

144 24. Apparel; Apparel Apparatus; Sewing-Machines. 

315 25. Butchering; Mills; Threshing; Vegetable Cutters 

and Crushers. 

106 26. Electricity, Generation; Motive Power. 

372 27. Brushing and Scrubbing; Grinding and Polish- 

ing; Laundry; Washing Apparatus. 
65 28. Internal combustion Engines. 

147 29. Coopering; Fire-Escapes; Ladders; Roofs; 

Wheelwright Machines; Wooden Buildings; Wood- 
Sawing; Wood-Turning; Wood-Working; Wood-work- 
ing-Tools. 

152 30. Illuminating-Burners; Illumination; Liquid and 

Gaseous Fuel Burners; Typewriting Machines. 

172 31. Alcohol; Ammonia, Water, and Wood Distilla- 

tion; Charcoal and Coke; Gas, Heating and Illuminat- 
ing; Hides, Skins, and Leather; Hydraulic Cement and 
Lime; Mineral Oils; Oils, Fats, and Glue. 

278 32. Carbonating Beverages; Curtains, Shades, and 

Screens; Dispensing Beverages; Dispensing-Cans; 
Ornamentation; Packaging Liquids; Refrigeration. 



38 



INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 



Room 

No. 



71 

304 

244 
264 
107 

378 

321 
280 



125 

279 

382 



161 



Divisions and subjects of invention 



33. Cutlery; Domestic Cooking Vessels; Masonry 
and Concrete Structures; Paving; Tents, Canopies, 
Umbrellas, and Canes. 

34. Railways; Railway-Brakes; Railway Rails and 
Joints; Railway Rolling-Stock; Railway Ties and 
Fasteners. 

35. Buckles, Buttons, Clasps, Etc.; Card, Picture, 
and Sign Exhibiting; Garment-Supporters; Toilet. 

38. Drafting; Driers; Engraving; Measuring In- 
struments; Photography. 

37. Electric Lighting; Electricity, Conductors; 
Electricity, Conduits; Electricity, General Applica- 
tions. 

38. Animal Husbandry; Artesian and Oil Wells; 
Fishing and Trapping; Stationery; Stone-Working. 

39. Water Distribution. 

40. Baggage; Bottles and Jars; Check-controlled 
Apparatus; Cloth, Leather, and Rubber Receptacles; 
Deposit and Collection Receptacles; Metallic Shipping 
and Storing Vessels; Package and Article Carriers; 
Paper Receptacles; Special Receptacles and Packages; 
Wooden Receptacles. 

41. Railway Draft Appliances; Resilient Tires and 
Wheels. 

42. Electric Railways; Electric Signaling; Railway 
Signaling; Signals. 

43. Baths and Closets; Electricity, Medical and 
Surgical; Fire-Extinguishers; Sewerage; Surgery; 
Water Purification. 



Trade-IMarks, Designs, Labels and Prints: 
Trade-Marks. 
Designs. 
Labels and Prints. , 



Perhaps the inventions which have to do with machines 
are the most numerous for the reason that they are 
invaluable with reference to the other branches of in- 
vention. It is believed unnecessary to merely enumer- 
ate random machines which are apparently needed 
because the individual inventor can easily apply himself 
without being told how. The following items, then, are 



THE FIELDS OF INVENTION 39 

merely suggestive with reference to machine inven- 
tions and are by no means exhaustive. 

The Elimination of Handwork. — In its several 
branches the elimination of handwork is perhaps one 
of the most fascinating fields of invention. It is ideal 
in that it offers unlimited power to the inventor to serve 
humanity, unlimited problems to attack, and lasting 
reward with success. The possible branches vary from 
the intricate automatic machinery which supplants the 
puny efforts of thousands of human beings to the simple 
little devices which make individual and domestic life 
easier. Primarily, such machines are intended to con- 
serve manual labor. In most cases the cost is con- 
siderabl}^ reduced, the work finished much better, and 
faster than that done by human beings, the output 
made more constant and uniform, and the great human 
element of carelessness avoided. Let us consider the 
case of an adding machine. Thousands of clerks in all 
parts of the country are no longer employed to do 
inefficiently, at best, what a comparatively few adding 
machines are now employed to do, with most of the 
advantages just enumerated. The complex machines 
which set and cast type with more than human pre- 
cision, the machines which make and repair shoes, the 
machines which make needles, pins, hooks, and similar 
articles are only a few of the many examples of labor- 
saving machines, while the mere mention of such devices 
as food choppers, bread mixers, washing machines, and 
the like serves to illustrate the possibilities of the other 
extreme of this class of invention. In this connection 
there is one point which is of more than passing interest. 
In nearly every case of labor-saving and automatic 
machinery it may be noted that the machine-made 
operations are different from the corresponding human 
operations. For instance, rotary motions largely sup- 



40 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

plant the finger and elbow motions of the human being. 
In fact, in many cases an exact duplication of human 
motions would be impossible and even when possible it 
is often desirable to avoid them for practical reasons. 
The point then is, machine operations in substitution for 
human operations should be adjusted to machine methods 
and not human methods in nearly every case. The failure 
of a number of attempts at this class of invention may 
be traced to a neglect of the foregoing principle. 

Protection of Human Life. — Since inventions are 
primarily for the benefit of human beings, it is only 
natural that the safeguarding of human life should be 
a very desirable field of invention. The percentage of 
successful inventions of this class is somewhat higher 
than some other classes for this very reason. Safety 
inventions are generally in the nature of improvements 
over existing conditions. Such simple inventions as a 
guard around a gear wheel and a guard around a razor 
blade to such complicated inventions as the magnetic 
air brake, these and many others are deserving examples 
of worth-while inventions of this class. The inspira- 
tion for such inventions often results from accounts of 
accidents and disasters, and a keen observation and 
study of the cause leads the inventor to the desired im- 
provements. The mere fact that 'such common and 
apparently unpromising articles as the match and the 
razor have been made safe should serve as examples of 
the opportunities in this field. 

Reduction of Cost. — The modern trend in all branches 
of business enterprise is to reduce the cost of producing, 
with the secondary object of increasing profit. Any 
invention which will accomplish this end or even con- 
tribute to such a result is in great demand and of assured 
success, provided that it remains within the limits of 
practicability. 



THE FIELDS OF INVENTION 41 

In this class of invention substitution and simplifi- 
cation are the chief factors, with cheaper materials and 
increased output with the same or better results as a 
secondary consideration. The hot-air blast applied to 
steel making is a good example of this class of inven- 
tion. The simple use of uniformly heated air in steel 
making was the solution of the difficult problem of 
producing steel of a uniform quality. It should be noted 
that cost-cutting inventions are most suited to operations 
in which an enormous amount of material is handled. 

Commercializing Waste Materials. — The present 
tendency of the commercial world is to minimize waste 
and to utilize waste materials for practical purposes. 
The inventive mind is called upon to devise ways and 
means for doing this in a profitable manner. Crematory 
plants which produce excess electricity from garbage, 
plants which produce fertilizers from garbage, the manu- 
facture of Blau-gas from petroleum waste, and the 
extraction of gold and other metals from mining wastes 
or from material otherwise inaccessible, are all good 
examples of this class of invention. 

Machines to Accomplish New Results. — In view of 
the modern development of machines, it is seldom that 
special machines are actually necessary to accomplish a 
new result, because machines already in existence can 
be adapted to the new purpose. This does not always 
hold true, however, and the invention of special ma- 
chines for special purposes is a worthy although per- 
haps less promising field of invention. 

New Articles of Manufacture. — A considerable por- 
tion of all patents issued is for inventions of this class. 
These are not necessarily limited to small articles as 
the name suggests but may include large articles as well. 
That this class of invention is very remunerative when 
the article fills a demand goes without saying, but this 



42 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

class of invention is also overdone in certain cases by 
useless duplication. By an article of manufacture is 
meant a new pot, an improved chair, a fuse plug, a 
film cartridge, or any of the thousands of other articles 
possible. In this class, it is worthy of note that articles 
possessing novelty and which are in demand or for which 
a demand can easily be created, are in constant demand. 
Such simple things as folding boxes, games, metal 
novelties, and similar articles find a ready market. In 
articles of this class cheap production in quantities is 
almost essential to success. It is a well-known fact that 
inventions of this class are often more remunerative 
than the more complicated inventions of other classes. 
The chief requirement of such articles may be summed 
up in the words, '' to please the public." 

Process Patents. — Process patents are not as numer- 
ous as other patents for the very reason that process 
patents generally refer to isolated methods of producing 
which are limited to the several arts. Such process in- 
ventions may revolutionize a given art or again they may 
be valuable or useless improvements as the case may be. 
Like the case of machinery, previously discussed, proc- 
esses have the object of cost reduction, increase of pro- 
duction, and the other advantages as objects. For the 
most part, a process can be better protected by patent 
than a new machine because of the fact that process 
patents are less numerous than the other class. Very 
broad claims can be obtained for this class of invention. 
Methods for producing new products, chemical com- 
pounds, articles of manufacture, extracting and refining 
metals, and for producing new results or parts contribut- 
ing to new or old results, are examples of this class of 
invention. The contact method for producing sulphuric 
acid and the process for producing artificial indigo are 
good examples of specific methods in this class. 



THE FIELDS OF INVENTION 43 

Composition Inventions. — Composition patents are 
often very valuable, particularly when they utilize some 
otherwise wasted materials, or when a new substance of 
great utility is the result. Leatheroid, substitutes for 
leather, rubber, metals, etc., insulating compounds, 
alloys, mixtures, and compounded raw materials are 
examples of this class of invention. This class of inven- 
tion relates to the production of better raw materials, 
substitutes for expensive raw materials, the use of other- 
wise wasted materials, or the production of a material 
having marked novel properties. Since nearly all raw 
materials including foodstuffs are in this class, it is 
surprising that there is not greater activity in this class 
of invention. 

Improvements. — The main classes of invention with 
the exception of design patents have been considered. 
Design patents and their value will receive attention 
later. 

That part of the patent law which says that a patent 
will be allowed for any new and useful improvement of 
any class of invention, is perhaps the most important 
portion because the vast majority of the patents issued 
depend upon this provision. Nearly all of the patents 
which are issued are for improvements in the several 
arts, processes, machines, compositions, or articles of 
manufacture, rather than for entirely new inventions. 

It is often said that the perfected invention is the 
work of scores of inventors rather than one man and in 
many cases this is true. The original device or machine 
as patented by the originator is apt to be clumsy, too 
expensive, too complicated, unreliable, etc.; but in 
spite of the defects it embodies the correct principles. 
The next inventor who takes up the same problem 
eliminates part or all of the defects, the next inventor 
and his successors in the same field continue to improve 



44 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

the preceding invention and so on until the perfected 
invention results. Frequently an apparently trivial 
change lasiy mean the difference between the success 
and the failure of an invention. Thus the moving pic- 
ture machine was made practical by merely enlarging the 
size of the projecting hole and a patent covering this 
change was upheld by the courts. 

It is for these reasons that the original inventor of 
a new machine or device may fail to reap a reward. The 
original invention is rendered useless because of its 
crudeness, unreliability, and other defects. The basic 
principle may be solved but the perfection of the details 
is the restraining force which separates the originator 
from success. It may happen that the original inven- 
tor is able to improve his own crude invention and thus 
obtain success, but only too often the success is given, 
and sometimes the credit for the invention is also given, 
to the inventor who improves the crude invention and 
makes it practical. The history of patents is well 
supplied with instances of this kind. Consider the recent 
invention of wireless signaling. Undoubtedly the name 
of Marconi is suggested at once as the original inventor, 
yet he can only be considered as the inventor who im- 
proved and made wireless signaling practical. The 
earlier workers, including scientists as well as inventors, 
received but a very small portion of the success which 
would have been their due if they had worked out the 
details. The case of wireless signaling points out 
another fallacy. 

After the Company was formed, it was found 

that there were a few prior patents of little or no utility 
which had been issued to inventors for systems of wire- 
less signaling. At that time the untuned wave system 
with the coherer receptor was the only known successful 
system of wireless signaling and it was evidently thought 



THE FIELDS OF INVENTION 45 

that it would be the final system, allowing for the per- 
fection of details. These prior patents were then bought 

by the Company as far as was possible and for 

a brief time the company had a complete monopoly of 
the art. At the present time the numerous success- 
ful systems and the various companies other than the 

Company are evidence of the inability of one 

patent or a group of patents to be final and least of 
all to control an entire art. No matter how perfect 
an invention may be it appears that there is always 
the possibility of improvement and nothing has ever 
been invented, even at the present time, which cannot 
be improved. The field for improvement patents is 
thus unlimited. 

The value of improvement patents often exceeds the 
value of the main patents in the art. To illustrate: 
A certain corporation bought the patent for the main 
principle of an art for a mere song. The improvement 
patents which were then obtained were valued at from 
fifty to one hundred times the amount paid for the 
original patent. It does not follow that this is always 
the case, for the original or so-called '' basic " patent is 
often the chief asset* of a large corporation and may be 
worth considerably more than all of the improvement 
patents put together. It is for this reason that certain 
inventors of fame who have conceived great and revolu- 
tionary inventions of broad scope, but who have not 
carried them out to the fine details through lack of the 
necessary ability or funds, have had the greatest success. 
Perhaps the development of the telephone and the 
automobile are the best examples of such successes. 

In the case of the automobile, the inventor was a 
shrewd patent attorney as well. With advantages not 

* At least one large electrical corporation does not list its patents 
as assets. 



46 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

possessed by ordinary inventors he was able to foresee 
that his invention was a little ahead of the times and to 
engineer it through the Patent Office in such a manner 
that it was finally allowed at just the proper time and 
some ten years later than the date of filing.* The 
claims had been so constructed as to make the patent 
basic and as a result the inventor was able to force 
tribute from the majority of manufacturers of any type 
of gasolene-propelled vehicles. Could there be a better 
example of the value of an understanding of patent 
matters to an inventor? 

Process of Improvements. — As in the case of methods 
of attacking the inventive problem, as discussed in 
Chapter IV, the improvements of inventions require 
definite methods of attack. Perhaps the most funda- 
mental process is that of simplification. 

Fewer Parts and Better Work. — The inventive mind 
becomes dissatisfied with the condition of an invention 
as it is and seeks to simplify the operations. However, 
in cutting down the necessary number of parts, the 
resulting device must not be lessened; that is it must do 
the same work as before with the fewer parts. If a 
simplified device does not do the same work it is not 
considered an invention. For instance, A invents an 
incandescent electric light with five parts which appears 
to work perfectly but which is expensive to manufacture. 
B, who is an inventor also, takes up the problem and 
succeeds in cutting down the necessary number of parts 
to four. Now if it happens that B's device is equal in 
every respect to A's, or superior, B has invented a 
valuable improvement and if no one else has invented 
the same thing before, he is entitled to a patent for the 
improvement. If, on the other hand, the simplified 
device of B is found to be less efficient than the light of 
* Such practice is now in disrepute. 



THE FIELDS OF INVENTION 47 

A or if it has less utility as a result of the fewer parts, 
B's device is not regarded as an improvement over A's 
and is not entitled to a patent. The mere omission of 
a necessary part is not an invention but the substitution 
of a new part for several other parts, making fewer parts 
and equal or better work, is an invention. Some of the 
greatest inventions are of this type. 

Invention Depending on a New Form for an Old 
Shape. — It may happen that the essential principles 
of an invention may be incorporated in a new form so 
that a fewer number of parts are necessary for equal 
results. Unless these conditions are produced by the 
new form, a mere change in shape for alleged conve- 
nience or in an attempt to get around a patent is not an 
invention. To be an invention, a change in form must 
produce the same or better results with less parts than 
before. For instance, A invents a battery with a con- 
tainer and the positive and negative plates in the same 
container. Now, if B tries to obtain a patent for the 
same thing with the exception that he makes the con- 
tainer out of a material which will act as one of the 
plates and as a result the apparatus is made more 
portable, less expensive, and equally efficient, he is 
entitled to a patent for his improvement, but if B's 
device is more expensive, less efficient, or not equal to 
A's device, he is not entitled to a patent for the mere 
change in shape. Again, suppose that while A's plates 
were round, B made his square. Unless B could prove 
a distinct advantage by this change in shape, he would 
not receive a patent for this feature. These examples 
are taken without respect to other limitations. Similar 
principles apply to many other cases. 

Invention Depending on a New Arrangement of Old 
Parts. — The desired simplification may sometimes be 
attained by a change in the arrangement of the parts, 



48 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

but such a change is not an invention unless a distinct 
advantage results or unless the parts are reduced with 
the same result. For instance, A invents a gas engine 
with an interior rotor. B then changes the position of 
A's parts and makes the outside part of the engine 
revolve while the inside remains stationary. Now, if 
the device of B has distinct advantages over the device 
of A, he has invented a patentable motor, but if, on the 
other hand, his motor depends entirely upon A's and 
has no points of superiority, B has not invented a 
patentable improvement on A's invention. 

Improvement Consisting of an Addition. — In some 
cases the addition of a part or parts may mean the 
difference between the success and failure of an inven- 
tion. Again, an addition of parts may merely make 
the device work better. In either case the new com- 
bination is patentable if a distinct advantage results, 
and the improvement is deserving of a patent. If the 
addition is merely superfluous, it does not deserve a 
patent. Thus, the addition of air-cooling flanges to an 
air pump was an improvement over the ordinary pump 
and was an invention because the new combination 
possessed the distinct advantage of greater efficiency, 
nonheating, and a few other less important items. 

Improvements of Several or All Classes Applied to One 
Invention. — It may happen that the combined use of 
one or more of the foregoing classes will be the solution 
of a perfected invention. This is true particularly in cases 
where the original invention is very complicated or crude. 

Piracy. Getting Around a Patent. — Certain inven- 
tors have found it. profitable to devise means for getting 
around a patent. The case of safety razors previously 
discussed is a good example of this. As soon as the 
first inventor receives his patent and markets his in- 
vention successfully, a number of other inventors at 



THE FIELDS OF INVENTION 49 

once begin an attack of the same problem from different 
points of view. Some may even utilize all of the origi- 
nal principles in some such manner as has already been 
outlined, while others will try for the same result with 
different means. The chief object is to accomplish 
the same result without infringing the original patent. 
The further object is to devise means which will be 
better than the original means in addition. The im- 
mediate result of successful attempts are intense com- 
petition, often lawsuits, and other forms of business 
warfare. As examples of successful attempts, the cases 
of the phonograph and the gramophone, the roll and 
the flat film, the rotary and reciprocating machines, the 
various flat and rotary devices, as well as countless 
others, are worthy of note. The business warfare which 
sometimes results is very expensive to the parties con- 
cerned and one or the other may be gobbled up by the 
stronger company. 

The only form of thus getting around a patent propo- 
sition which is not commendable is out and out piracy. 
Such piracy may take very serious forms so naive that 
ordinary thefts are not crimes in comparison. From 
the records of certain trials and interference proceedings 
it appears that unusual methods and fraudulent prac- 
tices have been adopted at times. Spies and detectives 
have been employed to steal the secrets of one person 
or company, employees have been bribed, the inventor 
has been defrauded by elaborate schemes, and so on. 
These cases are not fiction and a study of patent matters 
will show many such cases. 

One of the commendable features of the many 
classes of patents which get around the original patent 
is that the possibility of complete monopoly of an art 
or a part of an art is thus made almost impossible. 
The public is thus benefited by the competition and the 



50 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

ultimate cost is lessened. Some may not agree with 
this viewpoint, particularly the owners of such original 
patents as have been mentioned, but it is nevertheless 
a rational viewpoint. The cases in which the original 
patentee is wronged and the others are successful are 
regrettable. Similarly, the cases in which valuable 
improvements are stifled by the owners of the original 
patents of scope, thus retarding jprogress for personal 
profit, are likewise not commendable. In fact, there is 
little choice between the two, except that the former is 
less legal than the latter. 

Prolonging Monopoly. — This is a very lucrative field 
of invention. Large corporations employ inventors for 
this purpose. The idea is to extend the monopoly 
enjoyed at the present time beyond the expiration of 
the present patents by making improvements which will 
supplant the old forms. As an example we might men- 
tion the recent timely introduction of the hornless 
phonographs at just the time that the main phono- 
graph patents expired. 

The Fields of Invention in General. — The vast un- 
Hmited fields of invention have only been partially 
covered in this chapter. It is worthy of note that there 
is no field of human activity in which there are greater 
opportunities, larger rewards, and more lasting success. 
The most trivial thing is worthy the attention of an 
inventive mind and the most intricate problem is also 
possible of solution. Nothing is so small or so great 
that inventors cannot succeed in accomplishing a de- 
sired result; nothing has been invented which cannot 
be improved; and nothing is impossible to the collec- 
tive inventive mind. 

It seems necessary, however, to warn inventors against 
spending time and money on improfitable pursuits. The 
things to avoid may be summed up as follows: 




The Scientific Library of the Uxited States Patext Office 



To face page 5t 



THE FIELDS OF INVENTION 51 

Don't rely upon "Ksts of inventions wanted." They are usually 
good lists of things not to invent. 

Don't enter fields in which there is already an intense competi- 
tion. Strike out into new paths. 

Avoid reinventing things which have been patented before. 

Don't patent an invention which is a step backward in the art. 

Ascertain the probable demand and salability before attacking 
a problem. Many meritorious inventions fail because of the limited 
sales which are possible. 

Study the public need and never go ahead without this precau- 
tion. The public is the ultimate purchaser and supporter of all 
patented inventions. 

Don't enter fields about which you are ignorant. If necessary, 
learn everything possible about the art before starting out. 

Never become discouraged or allow your actions to be retarded 
by the poor advice of others. 

In short, make sure that the object is worth while, and then go 
after it. 

Design Patents. — Generally speaking, a design patent 
is difficult to dispose of in itself unless it has been ordered 
before it is applied for. It generally sells for a moderate 
sum, but since it requires less effort than the average 
mechanical invention a good designer may earn a snug 
competence from prolific activities in this field. The 
main requirements for a design appear to be novelty and 
elegance, in short, an appearance that '^ takes." That 
a design patent may be very valuable is a demonstrated 
fact. The design patents for the prism shade used 
extensively in electric lighting is a good example of this. 

When litigated the merits of two or more designs are 
decided mainly upon the consideration of whether or not 
an average purchaser could perceive the differences in 
design. 



CHAPTER VI 

PRELIMINARY STEPS. REDUCTION TO PRACTICE. 
PRECAUTIONS. THE SEARCH. PATENTABILITY 

Reduction to Practice. Precautions. — After an idea 
has come into the mind of an inventor the next step 
should naturally be the carrying out of the idea. This 
does not necessarily mean the immediate making of a 
full-sized model or the hurried expense for models with- 
out regard to detail and workability, but it does mean 
that the inventor should proceed with all possible dili- 
gence to reduce the idea to practice. Indeed this reduc- 
tion to practice is the stumbling stone for many inventors. 

As long as the idea remains an idea it cannot be con- 
sidered as an invention. It is a well-kno^vn fact that 
many persons conceive valuable ideas and never have 
enough initiative to reduce them to practice or to patent 
the invention. How often have we heard the exclama- 
tion of surprised reproach, " Why I thought of that 
long ago/' upon seeing some new invention? Of course 
there are persons who will claim credit for inventions 
after they hear about some one else's success, in spite of 
the fact that they may never have heard of the invention 
before. Then, too, some people think that the mere 
knowledge of the need of a certain invention constitutes 
inventing the practical means for accomplishing the 
needed result. Thus, we hear of this or that person 
claiming to be the first inventor of some invention after 
others have developed and applied it to commercial pur- 
poses, but where are the proofs? There may even be 
good grounds for such claims in some cases, but of what 
use are they? Or again, contests may be used in a very 

52 



PRELIMINARY STEPS 53 

few cases to endeavor to regain part of an already lost 
idea and to enjoy at least a part of the benefits. 

The Would-be and the Actual Inventor. — The fol- 
lowing excerpt from the decision of Mr. Justice Robb, 
of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, in 
Schmidt v. Clark (138 0. G. 768) may be commended. 
Discussing priority of conception of an invention and 
diligence in reducing to practice, he says: 

"A would-be inventor frequently has a nebulous and general 
idea of a result which he wishes to accomplish and possibly a general 
idea of means to accomplish that result, but, being unable to give 
his ideas practical form, allows them to slumber. Upon learning 
that another has successfully worked out such ideas, the mists of 
uncertainty are immediately dissipated, vagueness takes definite 
form, and the would-be inventor becomes in his own mind the 
actual inventor and acts accordingly. The danger and opportunity 
for fraud or mistake in such cases are so great that the proof should 
be very clear and very convincing to warrant an award to the 
dilatory party." — Scientific American. 

In addition to the foregoing cases, an inventor should 
always be prepared to prove his own case and to defend 
his invention from others who may have legally or ille- 
gally anticipated him. He must prepare to defend his 
invention against possible contests. The better pre- 
pared an inventor is, the less liable he is to such diffi- 
culties. 

Reduction to practice constitutes the grounds upon 
which a very large number of suits are based and upon 
which one or the other of the parties concerned generally 
depends for success. 

The present patent laws do not dictate or censor the 
exact methods which should be pursued to reduce an 
invention to practice. The inventor may immediately 
work the idea out to details or he may work only with 
the general principles of the invention. The inventor 
may make a model, or a full-sized machine. The model 



54 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

may be used immediately or later. The model may 
work, or vice versa, and so on. It does not matter 
what method is employed, provided the inventor uses all 
the diligence possible to disclose the completed invention 
to the public at the earliest possible date after its original 
conception. 

In some cases this may mean the necessity for quick 
action while in others conditions may force a wait of 
many years. It makes little difference how long an 
inventor may have had a general idea of an invention 
in the case of a contest, if his opponent reduced it to 
practice in a legal manner before he did. Again, al- 
though an inventor may have actually reduced his in- 
vention to practice before his opponent, he must be 
able to prove his priority in order to win the suit. 

Consider another case. It frequentl}^ happens that 
an invention is never actually reduced to practice before 
applying for the patent. Now, in case two inventors 
are found to claim substantially the same invention at 
about the same time and neither has actually reduced 
the invention to practice, other considerations may be 
substituted. Thus in a recent decision an inventor lost 
his right to the invention merely because he delayed 
the filing of his application. As the case is remembered, 
the loser had actually shown that he had conceived the 
idea earlier than the opponent had but that instead of 
applying for a patent at once, he had spent some time 
in endeavoring to find out if the invention was new. 
In the mean time his opponent conceived the idea and 
immediately applied for the patent. The two applica- 
tions were put to a contest and the latter won because 
he had used greater diligence to make the invention 
public than the other inventor. 

Formerly, the filing of a caveat was a good protection 
in many cases, but since the laws relating to caveats 



PRELIMINARY STEPS 55 

have been repealed it is necessary to exercise greater 
diligence in developing an invention. 

Only a portion of the possible cases have been men- 
tioned but these examples should suffice to show the 
importance of a diligent reduction to practice. Regard- 
less of the individual method used precautions should 
be taken in order to prove a case against possible suits. 

Many methods and schemes have been employed for 
this purpose by various inventors and a number of 
these are given below. 

1. If models are made, bills of material, receipts for 
labor, dated vouchers pertaining to them, and other 
records should be saved. 

2. All correspondence with any persons or companies 
relative to the invention should be saved. 

3. Sometimes inventors write out a formal descrip- 
tion of the invention, seal and mail it to themselves. 
The idea is to obtain the nonrefutable postmark date 
on the description without in fact disclosing the matter 
to another person. Special forms in which the envelope 
forms a portion of the description, making the whole in 
one piece, have been made for this purpose and have been 
placed on the market. To be of value, it is necessary 
that the mark be upon the papers and not upon a sep- 
arate envelope. 

4. An application may be made out and sworn to 
before a notary and then filed away as a record. 

5. The inventor should disclose the idea to one or 
more responsible persons of known integrity whenever 
possible, the idea being to have an undisputable wit- 
ness or witnesses to rely upon. 

6. A letter written to the Commissioner of Patents 
and stating that the writer has invented a new and 
useful invention giving the title and asking for a copy 
of the rules of practice will be returned with an indis- 



56 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

putable date stamped on it together with a stamped 
notice that no record has been kept of the letter at the 
office. 

7. Photographs of the model, tests, or other subjects 
of importance can be taken and dates of development 
recorded. It is necessary to have trustworthy witnesses. 

8. Sometimes in making a model, the various parts 
are ordered made at several shops and the parts then 
assembled. Records and parts should be saved and 
models dated. 

There are many other details which are useful. There 
is of course only a very small percentage of cases in 
which such proofs are actually needed, but it is always 
well to be prepared. 

The Search. Patentability. — Practically every in- 
ventor finds that at some time or other some other 
bright person has thought of the same thing that he 
now proposes to patent and as one inventor aptly 
stated it, 

'' I have often found that persons who are now dead 
and persons who lived hundreds of years ago have 
stolen my ideas" — the idea is found to be old. 

The inventor may never have heard of the invention 
before, and may have worked out all of the details 
without ever seeing the old invention, but that does 
not mean that the invention is new. He may even 
blindly apply for a patent or be led into applying for 
the patent by an attorney, but that does not mean 
that the invention is new. The only positive method 
of finding out whether or not an invention is new or 
anticipated is to duplicate the methods of the examin- 
ing force of the Patent Office by making a preliminary 
search. 

This preliminary search does not mean the mere 
opinion of the inventor or an attorney, or a partial 



PRELIMINARY STEPS 57 

inquiry to ascertain the novelty of the idea, but to be 
of actual and positive value it must be as thorough as 
that of the Patent Office. The mere fact that no simi- 
lar invention has been marketed or patented in recent 
years is no indication that the invention is new. Some 
other person may have anticipated it years ago and 
never actually marketed it. 

The primary purpose of a preliminary search is to 
ascertain the novelty of an invention. Secondary 
objects are to avoid unnecessary expense in case the 
invention is found to be anticipated, and to learn of 
previous attempts at the same object with a view to 
avoid former defects and failures. 

A preliminary search is therefore a very wise precau- 
tion. There are, however, a few drawbacks to this 
method. 

It is apt to be incomplete. Time is taken. There is 
a possibility of others learning of the invention who may 
use such knowledge to the inventor's disadvantage. 
It may be argued that the search is superfluous since the 
examiner will cover the same ground and since amend- 
ments can always be made. These disadvantages should 
not be over-valued. 

Inexperienced inventors are often misled by offers 
of free searches by attorney companies. Some com- 
panies even go so far as to print elaborate coupons and 
certificates. While some of these so-called searches are 
perhaps partially carried out, they generally consist in 
an optional opinion and a request for a fee. Some con- 
cerns make a practice of sending out reports of patent- 
ability before any search has been made and if any is 
really made it is done after a retaining fee has been 
paid. The various tricks employed in this respect as 
inducements are many and intricate and too much care 
cannot be taken to avoid such concerns. Even the 



58 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

concerns which make such offers admit their uselessness 
by advising what they call a '' special examination," 
which is in reality the search which the inventor thinks 
the free opinion offered and for which of course a fee 
is charged. Such concerns should be avoided with the 
same care that loan sharks should be shunned. The 
various certificates, guarantees, etc., are worthless and 
merely used as bait for the unsuspecting, 

A real search cannot be made free for the very reason 
that it involves time and expense. The legitimate 
price for such a service is from So to SIO or more depend- 
ing upon the actual difficulty of the search. A com- 
petent searcher will look through the records of the 
United States patents and will send copies of all of 
the nearest patents to the one under examination, to the 
inventor, together with an explanation and opinion. 
Even this kind of search is incomplete, in that only 
United States patents are considered, while the ex- 
aminers in the Patent Office will reject a case on refer- 
ences from foreign patents and publications. For most 
of the ordinar}' cases, of course, a thorough search of the 
United States patents will suffice, but unless it is thor- 
ough it affords no more assurance than none. There 
are many cases on record in which the application has 
been rejected when a hurried preliminary search either 
showed no references or else the reference was noticed 
and not understood or explained. 

To obtain a really exhaustive report as to novelty 
requires a complete search of all records in duplication 
of the patent examiners' search and since this is difficult 
and takes much time, it is expensive. For instance, the 
complete examination into the novelty of even a simple 
invention, particularly if it is of the common improve- 
ment type, would require an expenditure of from $25 
to $50 or more while cUfficult cases would require greater 



PRELIMINARY STEPS 59 

expense. Of course such an examination is very valu- 
able and is a good indication of the real novelty of an 
invention. 

The value of a search, then, depends upon its thor- 
oughness. It is a well-known fact that a few attorneys 
make a practice of withholding the facts about the 
novelty of an invention from their client for the pur- 
pose of obtaining the fee from an improvement patent. 
It is generally easy to obtain one or two claims covering 
a few details of an invention or as the phrase is known, 
** to put it through the Patent Office anyway." 

A search may often discourage an inventor from filing 
an application because he then sees that only a limited 
scope can be obtained in his claims on account of the 
prior art. Some inventors believe that it is best to 
work out all of the details of an invention without 
reference to prior work in the art in order to obtain an 
independent method of attack which is not possible to 
so great an extent as when the prior work is studied. On 
the other hand, the complete knowledge of prior work 
is of great value to many inventors. 

The search, then, to be of real value, should be com- 
plete and should be made by a competent person. A 
digest from a decision of the commissioner of Patents in 
1897 (Com. Pats, re J. Wedderburn & J. Wedderburn 
Co., 81 0. G., page 159, in disbarment proceedings) is 
given below. Its significance is evident. (See also 
digest in appendix.) 

Preliminary Search — Proper Search. — In order to disclose refer- 
ences that may exist in the records of the Patent Office which are 

accessible to the public, it is necessary that the search be made by 
a competent person skilled in this Kne of work, able to recognize a 
reference when he sees it, that this expert searcher take sufficient 
time to fully understand the invention on which he is making the 
search, and that he take sufficient time to make a thorough and com- 



60 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

plete examination of aU classes of invention that may reasonably be 
supposed to have any bearing upon the invention. 

Same — Same — Duty of Attorney — Close References Should be 
Cited. — It is the duty of an attorney to report the result of a search 
fully and correctly to the inventor. When references exist which 
approach the invention so closely as to throw doubt on the advis- 
abihty of taking out a patent, they should be called to the inven- 
tor's attention, even though they do not completely anticipate. 

As the following statistics show, nearly twice as many 
applications are filed as are allowed ; proof that more care 
should be taken with the preliminary steps. 

PATENT OFFICE STATISTICS 

The following is a statement of the business of the office for the year ending 
December 31, 1912:* 

Number of applications for patents 68,968 

Number of applications for design patents 1,850 

Number of applications for reissue patents 158 

Total 70,976 

Number of disclaimers filed 15 

Number of appeals on the merits 1,732 

Number of patents granted, including designs 37,573 

Patents reissued •. 158 

Total 37,731 

Number of patents expired 20,883 

Number of patents forfeited for non-payment of final fees 7,494 

Number of patents allowed awaiting final fees 13,303 

The total number of applications filed at the Patent Office in seventy-five years, 
1837-1912, was 1,926,009; number of original patents, including designs and reissues 
issued, 1,106,235. 

The receipts of the Patent Office during the year ending December 31, 1912, were 
$2,118,158.30, and expenditures, $2,022,066.11. Receipts over expenditures, $96,092.19. 
Total net surplus to December 31. 1912, $7,160,017.95. 

* Abridged. 

It is advisable to have a trusted expert to attend to 
this part of the preliminary steps and the inventor 
himself should be able to attend to this search when 
necessary or at least to understand the references cited. 
Then, too, there is the possibility, which is not to be 
overlooked, for improvements in the new invention from 
suggestions obtained from older attempts. 



PRELIMINARY STEPS 61 

Such a search cannot include an examination of pend- 
ing applications and for this and many other reasons it 
is advisable in some cases to apply for the patent at once. 

It is regrettable that the inventor has not an easy 
means for conducting the search himself and that it is 
necessary to go to Washington for a really thorough 
search of the records or engage an attorney. To b'e 
sure, a limited search can be made by means of an index 
and a file of the Official Gazette for each year and such 
a search is satisfactory in some cases, but experience 
shows that it is not sufficiently reliable in itself and may 
even be misleading. 

A classification index can be obtained from the Patent 
Office for the nominal sum of ten cents and ten cents 
for supplements containing amendments which may be 
of assistance in some cases. 

Another cause of an incomplete search is the difficulty 
in finding references of certain classes which are distrib- 
uted in out-of-the-way subclasses on account of their 
titles, but which could be grouped together with other 
titles in one class. This distribution causes errors on 
the part of patent examiners in some cases as well as on 
the part of preliminary searchers.* 

Patentability. — The exact question of patentability 
is one which bothers nearly every inventor. It is a 
question which cannot generally be decided off-hand 
and which involves a different point or points in nearly 
every case. 

In general it may be said that some kind of patent can 
be obtained if the invention embodies novel details re- 

* The Patent Office is now revising and indexing all of the 
patents which have been issued. The work is more than half 
completed and when done it will prove of great value to inventors. 
The immediate effect wiU be to give each patent a greater vaUdity 
upon its allowance. 



62 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

gardless of whether the main idea is new or not and indeed 
the majority of the patents issued appear to be of this 
type. The inventor may believe that he has invented the 
main principle as well as the details and that the patent 
covers the principle as well as the details or detail but 
in many cases the invention is limited to a relatively un- 
important detail. To the inexperienced inventor it is 
difficult to understand how a patent application can 
show a complete machine and really only protect a 
small part. Even inventors with some experience are 
bothered about the subject of patentability and the 
scope of a patent. It is one of the objects of this book 
to make these points clearer. It is, of course, impossible 
to include all of the possible cases of patentability but a 
few of the main points will be found in Chapter VII. 

The inventor should look further than the mere ques- 
tion of patentability and should also ascertain the 
question of commercial utility, actual novelty, and practi- 
cability, before spending time and money upon an idea. 
Contrary to a mistaken belief, the mere fact that a 
patent is allowed is no indication that the invention is 
valuable or, in some cases, that it is even new, except in a 
few details, much less that the invention is practicable and 
of commercial utility. Then, too, there is a possibility 
that the patent is not a protection against infringement 
or piracy. All these points require attention. 



CHAPTER VII 
PATENTABILITY AND PRACTICABILITY 

We have already seen that some kind of a patent can 
generally be obtained on an invention even if the main 
principle is found to be old. In Chapter V the fields 
of invention were discussed and a few cases of patent- 
ability considered. The actual question of patent abihty 
is one of great difficulty and one which can only be de- 
cided after protracted suits in the courts in a number 
of cases. In fact this uncertainty^ of patentability and 
the protection which can be obtained is a grave problem 
at the present time. Some pessimists even go so far as 
to say that all patents are worthless until they have 
been proved in the courts and that a patent is merely a 
license to enter into a series of lawsuits. 

The question of patentability is of the greatest im- 
portance for the very reason that it decides whether an 
invention is patentable or not and also decides the value 
of an invention. 

Since a majority of the inventions which are patented 
relate to combinations, a large part of which are merely 
new uses and arrangements of old elements, a few de- 
cisions relating to such inventions are of importance to 
an understanding of the patentability of such combina- 
tions. 

In Rogers v. Ryer, 10 0. G. 204, it was held that, 

It is not inventive to use an old machine for a new purpose. The 
inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all uses to which 
it can be put, no matter whether he conceived the use or not. 

Thus, if an inventor patents a kitchen cabinet, for 
instance, and others apply the same principles to a 

63 



64 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

filing cabinet, the inventor of the kitchen cabinet can 
obtain a royalty for the new use of his invention. All 
of the examples, of course, depend upon the supposition 
that the patent is protective and sufficiently broad as 
to include the new use. 

In ex parte Gross, 10 0. G. 739, it was held that, 

The change of location of an element in a combination where 
that change produces in substance no new combination nor a new 
operation is not patentable. 

Thus, if A invents a box with a cover on the top and 
B puts the cover on one side, B cannot patent the change 
unless there is a new operation, since it is evident that 
there is no new combination. 

In Asmus v. Freeman, 86 O. G. 231, it was held that, 

Where the improvement and consequent public benefit are very 
great, very little evidence of invention is required. 

The success of simple inventions and the frequent 
support of their validity in the courts are further proofs 
of this principle. 

In ex parte Scriven, 57 0. G. 1128, it was held that, 

A conceded difference of construction between the device claimed 
and the reference cited, together with a clear advantage as a result 
of it, constitutes patentable novelty. 

Thus, a change in the construction which has a de- 
cided advantage is patentable. 

In West Mineral Wool Co. v. Globe Min. Wool Co., 
77 O. G. 1127, it was held that. 

Simplicity does not negative invention when a new and useful 
result is accomplished. 

This principle is self-explanatory. It is, however, 
necessary to prove that a new and useful result is accom- 
plished. 

The following items relate particularly to public use. 
The public use of an invention more than two years 



PATENTABILITY AND PRACTICABILITY 65 

before an application for a patent is filed makes it invalid. 
The paragraphs are self-explanatory. 
Jenkins, C. D. 1873, p. 141. 

Any use which, viewed with liberality, can be regarded as experi- 
mental, should be so held. 

Kelleher v. Darling, 14 0. G. 673. 

Public use, no matter how limited and whether with or without 
the knowledge or consent of the patentee, more than two years 
before applying for a patent, is fatal to the patent. 

Brungger v. Smith, 62 0. G. 1513. 

The two years of "public use and sale" relate to the complete 
invention only, and have no reference to use for experimental pur- 
poses. 

The following relate to subject matter and utility. 
These are quite clear and worthy of note. 
Ex parte Smith, C. D. 1873, p. 144. 
Perpetual motion devices cannot be made the subjects of patents. 

Ex parte Gerson, 11 0. G. 244.* 

New arrangements of printed matter on tickets, circulars, pads, 
books, etc., are not the proper subjects of patents. 

Fuller V. Yentz, 11 0. G. 551. 

A patent will not be sustained if the claim is for a result, a prin- 
ciple, an idea, or any other mere abstraction. 

Ex parte Ackert, C. D. 1872, p. 47. 

Mere curiosities of invention, not having any intelligent purpose, 
are not useful in a patentable sense and are not patentable in a legal 
sense. 

Converse v. Cannon, 9 0. G. 105. 

All that the law requires as to utility is that the invention shall 
not be frivolous or dangerous. 

Ex parte Sanche, 80 0. G. 185. 

The degree of utility is immaterial in determining whether a device 
is patentable. 

* When great utiHty results, an exception is sometimes made. 



66 iNVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

In addition to the foregoing, patents for immoral 
devices, perpetual motion schemes, systems of carrying 
out business, and abstractions are not patentable. 

The following cases are cited concerning anticipation. 

Topliff V. Topliff, 59 0. G. 1257. 

It is not sufficient to constitute anticipation that the device relied 
upon might by modifications be made to accomplish the function 
performed by the patent in question. 

Ex parte Rouse & Stoddard, 7 O. G. 169. 

A rejected application will no longer be considered a bar to a 
new application for a patent for the same invention. 

Truman v. Carvill Mfg. Co., 87 Fed. Rep. 

Trade magazines, published and copyrighted, in general cir- 
culation and found in public libraries as well as scientific Ubraries, 
are ''pubUcations" in the sense of the patent law. 

National Electric Signaling Co. v. United Wireless 
Telegraph Co., Circuit Court D., Maine, Sept. 21, 1911, 
189 F. R., p. 727. 

For a publication to constitute an anticipation of a patent, it 
must describe the invention in such full, clear, and intelUgent terms 
as to enable persons skilled in the art to reproduce the process or 
article without assistance from the patent. 

The following relate to miscellaneous features. 
Ex parte Woodbridge, 15 0. G. 564. 

An invention may become abandoned by a wilful or negligent 
postponement of the assertion of the inventor's rights or by an 
attempt to withhold the benefit of his improvement from the public 
until a similar improvement is made and introduced by others. 

Western Electric Co. v. Sperry Electric Co., 65 0. G. 
597. 

There is a material difference between the abandonment of 
inventions and applications. The first gives the invention to the 
public and is irretrievable. In the second case the application may 
be renewed or a new application may be filed. 



PATENTABILITY AND PRACTICABILITY 67 

Gill V. Wells, 22 Wall 28. 

Equivalents are such ingredients as will perform the same func- 
tion as the one described and which were well known at the date 
of the patent as proper substitutes for the ones actually described 
in the patent. 

Union Met. Cartridge Co. v. U. S. Car. Co., 11 0. G. 

1113. 

An inventor, without describing equivalents in a patent, is 
entitled to be protected in their use and to treat their use by others 
as an infringement. 

Sayre v. Scott, 63 0. G. 1818. 

Two things are the same in the sense of the patent law when 
they perform the same function in substantially the same way and 
accomplish the same result. 

Page V. Ferry, Fed. Cases, No. 3124. 

If the principle of an invention is pirated, there is an infringe- 
ment. 

See also: 

WeUs V. Curtis, 66 F. R. 318; 74 O. G. 495. 

Griswold, 78 O. G. 482. (Aggregation.) 

Snyder, 78 O. G. 485. (Difference between aggregation and 
combination.) 

Andrews v. Thum, 67 F. R. 911; 72 0. G. 899. (Article of manu- 
facture.) 

Kilbourne v. Bingham Co., 50 F. R. 697; 60 O. G. 577. (Change 
of materials.) 

Ives V. Hamilton, 92 U. S. 426; 10 O. G. 336. (Change of the 
parts.) 

Butler V. Steckel, 137 U. S. 21-30; 52 0. G. 1090. (Change in 
shape.) 

Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 WaU. 498; 7 O. G. 172. (Idea not 
patentable.) 

Weir V. Norden, 125 U. S. 98-108; 43 0. G. 753. (Lack of in- 
vention.) 

Hill V. Wooster, 132 U. S. 693; 50 0. G. 560. (Invention lack- 
ing.) 

Forncrook v. Root, 127 U. S. 176; 43 O. G. 984. (Prior use.) 

Glue Co. V. Upton, 97 U. S. 3. (Result not patentable.) 



68 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

There are a large number of similar cases and the 
number is constantly increasing. Some of the deci- 
sions are directly opposite to others in treating sub- 
stantially the same points. (See also the pamphlet on 
patent laws issued by the Patent Office.) 

There are, then, several points which determine the 
patentability of an invention. The reason for non- 
patentability may vary from inoperativeness to lack of 
invention generally. Each case presents its own points 
so that no set rules can be set down except general 
statements based upon cases which have already been 
decided. 

In addition to the numerous rules and laws which 
determine the patentability there are a number of un- 
written laws in actual patent practice. The allowance 
of patent claims depends to- a large extent on the per- 
sonal opinion of the examiner who cares for the case as 
well as on the skill of the person who prosecutes it. 

Subjects Unpatentable 

A mere idea, a mental conception alone, is unpatentable because 
by itself it is not accomplished. 

So is a scientific principle, a property of matter or a law of 
nature because no one can be given the exclusive right to a natural 
truth. 

You cannot patent a result — running water, for example — but 
you may be able to patent means for producing running water. 

Neither can you obtain a patent by aggregation — combining 
old things which do not cO-act; or by duplication — using two shovels 
side by side, for instance, instead of one. 

Nor can you patent an adaptation — the use of a razor to sharpen 
lead pencils. 

If you only change the form, size, material, proportions or arrange- 
ment of something already existing, you cannot patent the change; 
if you accomplish something else by the change you may be able 
to get a patent. 

You cannot patent a system which does not possess novelty and 
utility, you cannot patent a mere transposition of parts which 



PATENTABILITY AND PRACTICABILITY 69 

accomplishes nothing new, you cannot secure a patent for an addi- 
tion which merely makes a device convenient to transport — as by 
putting casters on a sectional book case, and you cannot patent a 
device which may be injurious to public morals. 

Or if you do get through the patent office by errors of the examiners 
your patent will not hold water in the courts. 

" Utility and workability are as important as is patentability." 

The probable commercial worth of the invention is 
difficult to ascertain in most cases and there is a tend- 
ency to overestimate its value on the part of the in- 
ventor. The value depends to a considerable extent 
upon the demand and since this demand can be found by 
comparison with other successful patents, an approxi- 
mate idea can be arrived at. 

For instance, suppose it is found that an invention is 
novel and patentable, but that it is limited to an im- 
provement over a former patent. Now, if the prior 
patent is basic in its nature and covers the employment 
of the new invention, there is practically only one pos- 
sible manner in which it can be of value, namely that 
it must be of such importance that the owner of the 
other patent will either buy or acquire a royalty con- 
tract in it. In cases where the earlier patent is not 
marketed the opposite arrangement can sometimes be 
worked out. Now, if the improvement is not marked 
in the new invention and does not accomplish such a 
great object that the other patentee will find it essential 
or that it will make an inoperative patent operative, its 
utility is sure to be very slight. 

Every investor and inventor should thoroughly ex- 
amine the patentability and utility of an invention 
before going to much expense or even applying for the 
patent. The idea should be more than a mere crudity 
— as near perfect as possible or desired. See that it is 
free from fallacies — prove that it does the work. Then 



70 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

prove that it will continue to do the work. It is also well 
to ascertain the expense which will be required to pro- 
mote the invention to success and to take steps to see 
if it can be supplied or obtained, just as in any other 
business undertaking. 

The manufacturer should take the greatest caution in 
protecting his industry with patents and to his credit 
it may be said that he generally does. He should fore- 
see possible competition and, if possible, patent every 
possible form of device for the purpose which he or his 
employees can invent. Even a single feature may make 
a patent valuable if it covers a desirable commercial 
feature. All processes, machines, or blanks used in the 
manufacture should be examined to see if they are 
patentable or can be improved to make them patent- 
able. Aside from the manufacturing point of view, the 
possession of good patents may greatly increase the 
value of the capital stock or serve as a means for in- 
creasing the capital stock. 

Again, if a patentable invention is worked out and 
not patented, a competitor may patent the same and 
sue the originator for infringement. The manufacturer 
should not neglect to patent an invention or aid an 
employee because of his poor judgment or lack of knowl- 
edge in such matters. The mere fact that old machinery 
is used in carrying out a new process does not render it 
unpatentable. The process is independent of the appa- 
ratus used, and may onty embrace a new mode of using 
old machinery which is already in the plant. The pos- 
sibilities in licensing or selling such patents will be dis- 
cussed later. 

It is no secret that many manufacturers dislike 
patents. For the most part they are of the class which 
is forced to pay high royalties for the use of the machin- 
ery in their plant and to which they have no title in 



PATENTABILITY AND PRACTICABILITY 71 

many cases, or of the class which is restricted in its oper- 
ations by patents. Or, again, many manufacturers 
invest large sums in systems and machinery or even in 
patents only to be forced to abandon them for other 
and more improved methods and machinery within a 
small space of time. The failure of certain automobile 
manufacturers is traced to this cause by some experts. 
The difficulty is that the manufacturer is not alive to 
his possibilities in the field and does not keep in touch 
with the new patents or try to develop his own improve- 
ments until it is too late and another has captured the 
trade. One manufacturer even put himself on record 
as saying that patents hurt business. On the con- 
trary patents promote business by their very nature. 
They are intended to and do protect industrial property. 

Nearly every reader has doubtless heard the tale of 
woe of some manufacturer or other who has been bested 
by competitors. He does not realize until it is too late 
that the tables could have been turned with a little 
foresight. Every manufacturer is open to strenuous 
competition at the present time and even patents are 
not exempt. It is necessary to constantly develop new 
improvements to keep ahead of the times and since 
patents are the nearest thing to a perfect armor against 
the shots of competitors they should be procured when- 
ever possible. There are hundreds of good patents, 
which could be obtained, begging for a purchaser, and 
if the manufacturer cannot develop his own inventions 
he can buy them already developed. Look around a 
bit. Pick out the good ideas and have them patented. 
Then thank this book for the suggestion. 

It is not necessary that an invention be complicated 
or of the wheel-and-gear order to be patentable. Some 
of the most successful patents are for apparently trivial 
inventions. Without doubt, many patentable ideas 



72 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

occur to many persons during their daily pursuits but 
are either forgotten or dismissed as unpatentable on 
account of the simplicity. 

Such action is unnecessary and may mean the loss of 
a snug fortune. There are many cases which are of 
record in which the patentee just barely escaped this 
stage through an accident or the good advice of real 
friends. The readers are doubtless familiar with the 
story of the telephone patent. The inventor, Bell, 
had been working for some time upon the invention and 
had shown the partially perfected apparatus to some 
friends. He had practically decided for himself that 
the device was not patentable and it was only through 
the advice of his friends that the patent was applied 
for. As it happened, an interfering application was 
filed on the same day at a later hour by another inven- 
tor, Gray. The fame and fortune which eventuall}^ re- 
sulted from the telephone was thus diverted to Bell by 
the merest slip of luck. There are many other similar 
cases. An inventor should therefore not miss the patent- 
ability in anything which he may devise, and before 
finally deciding against the idea, it is well to consult 
others who may be undoubtedly trusted. 

Indeed there are numerous instances of patented sub- 
ject matter which a layman might hardly consider 
patentable. It is well established that simplicity does 
not negative invention. A mere improvement over 
existing conditions may mean an enormous commercial 
possibility. There are many subjects for invention 
which are but little understood. Thus improved systems 
and methods for accomplishing old work are patentable 
subject matter. Patents for the simplest improvements 
have been repeatedly upheld. 

When it is considered that the patent laws provide 
immense opportunities to manufacturers and inves- 



PATENTABILITY AND PRACTICABILITY 73 

tors, it is surprising that more of these persons and 
concerns do not avail themselves of such possibilities. 
Without doubt there are many improvements and sys- 
tems or methods which are in operation to-day that 
could be readily protected by the patent laws. A 
manufacturer may thus prevent competitors from using 
his process or machinery to accomplish similar cost 
reductions and the like. Then, too, practically every 
employee would be able to suggest valuable ideas or 
invent machines if the matter were only presented to him 
in the right light and with some incentive for reward. 
The manufacturer would undoubtedly find such a plan 
extremely profitable and he might even be surprised 
to find that several of his employees already had ideas 
which they were afraid or reluctant to disclose to him 
before. 

The possibilities in this matter are practically un- 
limited and should be developed. 

Patenting Basic Inventions Which are not Practical. 
— If an invention is not practical from the commercial 
viewpoint, it may still become a valuable patent pro- 
vided that the patent is broad enough to include com- 
mercially desirable forms which may be developed 
later. This statement should be considered carefully, 
however, since it may easily be misunderstood.' 

Last Step Rule 

A slight step in advance which turns numerous previous 
unsuccessful solutions of a problem into success is patent- 
able. When weak claims come under this classification 
they immediately become strong. 



CHAPTER VIII 
APPLICATION FOR A PATENT. PROSECUTION 

After the inventor has carried out the preUminary 
steps and has arrived at the point where it is advis- 
able to apply for a patent immediately, he may either 
engage an attorney to prepare and prosecute the appli- 
cation or attend to the same himself, preferably the 
former. The matter of selecting a competent attorney 
depends upon the judgment and circumstances of the 
inventor. If a trustworthy attorney is secured, the 
inventor will have comparatively smooth sailing, the chief 
item being that a full and complete description and 
drawings or models should be disclosed and placed 
at the attorney's disposal. If an unknown attorney 
must be employed, accurate references should be se- 
cured (not mere printed references in pamphlets), and 
steps taken to insure confidence in him. 

At this point a retaining fee is generally asked for, 
together with the first government fee of SI 5, but 
some attorneys wait until after the papers have been 
drawn up and signed. Avoid the signing of contracts 
or attorneys who give contracts to refund money, 
guarantee, etc., as has already been pointed out. 

The papers and drawings should then be prepared at 
once without any delay. When a draftsman is employed 
to make the drawings or when the attorney attends to 
this detail, care should be taken to see that it actually 
illustrates the invention accurately. If it does not, do 
not be afraid to say so and to demand an accurate 
illustration. Some attorneys make excessively elabo- 
rate and pleasing perspectives or have them made for 

74 



APPLICATION FOR A PATENT. PROSECUTION 75 

their clients. Don't be misled by any frills, but see 
that your invention is fully illustrated. It is not neces- 
sary to have the inventor sign the drawing and for this 
reason some attorneys do not send the drawing to the 
inventor for inspection. Such practice is not commend- 
able and gives opportunity for deception. 

The complete application consists of a '^ specification " 
which is a complete description of the construction and 
mode of operation, or a disclosure of a process or com- 
pound, as the case may be, the first government fee of 
$15, a " petition," asking that the Commissioner may 
issue letters patent to the petitioner, and an " oath " in 
which the applicant states that he believes that he is 
the first and sole inventor of the invention described. 
Drawings are also required for a complete application 
in all cases in which a drawing is possible. (Before 
signing any of the papers sent to you be sure that they 
are correct and fully describe your invention.) 

The manner in which these papers are prepared is of 
vital importance and a further discussion of the sepa- 
rate items will be found in later chapters. The inex- 
perienced inventor finds it practically impossible to 
judge of the accuracy and clearness of the papers which 
have been prepared for him, particularly in the matter 
of the claims, and unless the attorney is reliable he is 
at a great disadvantage. The value of the patent 
depends upon the care and skill with which the papers 
are prepared. This will also appear more fully later. 

Never sign an application in blank or without exam- 
ining it thoroughly. According to rule 31 this will 
invalidate the patent and an attorney who would use 
such a method is unreliable from the beginning. It is 
a wise precaution to retain a copy of the specification 
and claims and drawings if possible. 

If the papers are found to be satisfactory and are 



76 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

signed and witnessed and then sent with the fees to the 
attorney, he sends it to the Patent Office where it is 
classified according to the numerous divisions and 
placed on the files for examination. A receipt is then 
sent to the attorney acknowledging the receipt of the 
first fee and giving the serial number of the applica- 
tion. This receipt* should be sent to the inventor at 
once and should be kept by him. 

This serial number is merely the consecutive number 
which happens to come to the application, beginning 
with number 1 on January 1, 1900. The receipt also 
indicates the class of the invention. When thus filed 
the machinery of the law is well started towards the pro- 
tection of the invention, and it is possible to market the 
invention with the notice that a patent has been applied 
for. While this method is often adopted it is somewhat 
hazardous since it opens the inventor to liability from 
infringement, contests, and the loss of foreign patents 
in some countries. In other cases the privilege is abused. 

The application is then taken up in the regular order 
of filing as far as practicable. It reaches the hands of an 
examiner who cares for it until the patent is allowed or 
refused as the case may be. The examiner acquaints 
himself with the application, notes the errors of form, 
incompleteness, spelling, prolixity, etc., and makes an 
exhaustive search of the records of this and foreign 
countries as well as publications to see if there are any 
prior patents or other references which anticipate the 
application. 

A letter is then written to the attorney stating that 
the case has been examined, calling attention to errors 
of form, typography, etc., and stating objections to all 
the points which he has noted. It is also likely that any 

* Recently it has become the practice to point out errors in the 
drawings at this time. 



APPLICATION FOR A PATENT. PROSECUTION 77 

or all of the claims will be rejected and references cited. 
It may happen that the attorney has been shrewd 
enough to file one or more claims which are limited 
enough to pass without objection. It is generally the 
claims of the greatest scope which are objected to. 
The drawing may be found inaccurate or faulty and 
changes required. It is at this point that the prosecu- 
tion of a patent should begin. 

A patent application may be considered as a form of a 
struggle with the Patent Office and examiners on one 
side representing the public and pulling to prevent the 
inventor from obtaining too much for his disclosure, 
and the inventor, generally aided by an attorney, pulling 
on the other end in the opposite direction to obtain the 
greatest possible protection for the invention. The first 
action upon the application may take from two weeks 
or less to two months or more depending upon the con- 
dition of affairs in the particular division. Thus some 
subdivisions are continually in arrears with their work 
while others are on time and ready for new work. Some 
of the classes are months behind. 

The application is kept secret from the time it is filed 
until it goes to issue (assuming that it is allowable), and 
no unauthorized person can obtain access to it. Some 
attorneys do not inform their clients of the progress of 
the application. It seems that the inventor is entitled 
to receive prompt and complete information of the 
progress. 

The Prosecution. — After the first communication is 
received from the Patent Office it is the attorney's duty 
to reply to the examiner's communication at an early 
date and to meet the objections, make amendments, 
argue against the cancellation of claims, etc. This may 
necessitate radical changes, the rewording of claims, the 
addition of new claims, arguments to show that the 



78 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

examiner's position is wrong, etc. This process may 
have to be repeated again and again and the successful 
completion requires skillful treatment. This is the crit- 
ical point in the success of the application. The exam- 
iner is often wrong and again he is often right in his 
stand. In addition to the regular rules and laws there 
are countless unwritten requirements. 

Matters of form and formalities have to be adhered 
to, the meaning of references has to be understood, the 
rights of the inventor have to be insisted upon, and every 
detail must be handled to the best interest of the in- 
ventor. Unless the prosecution is strictly and forcibly 
carried out in an honest unrestricted manner, the at- 
torney fails in his duty to the inventor. It is often nec- 
essary to make as many as six replies to the objections 
of the examiner, and the prosecution of a case may 
extend over a number of years. It may be remarked, 
however, that a number of cases are needlessly pro- 
longed in a useless attempt to secure an impossible 
patent or in a successful attempt to delay the date of 
allowance of a patent. 

It sometimes happens that the examiner is needlessly 
obdurate and that he takes an untenable stand. It is 
further likely to happen that arguments do not change 
this viewpoint and since a valid patent is desired it be- 
comes necessary to take an appeal. This is a condition 
of affairs which should not be necessary in the vast 
majority of cases and which may often happen through 
the error of the attorney as well as the examiner. Before 
considering the matter of appeals, a more detailed account 
of methods of prosecution will be given, particularly for 
the benefit of those who may still desire to present their 
own applications and those who may desire to follow the 
work of the attorney. 

In the first place it would be well to study the rules of 



APPLICATION FOR A PATENT. PROSECUTION 79 

practice thoroughly and to obtain a full understanding 
of patent matters. 

Matters of Form. — 1. Formalities must be adhered 
to in nearly every case but they can be neglected for a 
time in some cases. (See rule 64 of the Patent Office 
Rules of Practice.) 

2. Typography, errors of typography, etc., are gen- 
erally specifically pointed out by the examiner and in 
most cases should be corrected as suggested without 
delay. It is necessary to indicate the precise point at 
which the change is to be made, as, for instance. 

Line 4, page 2. After the word "because" erase the words, "it 
revolves," and insert the words, "they rotate" in their place. 
Line 17, page 2. Change the word "equivalant" to "equivalent." 

Use a separate paragraph for each item to be changed. 
See also form 27 (in Rules of Practice). 

Indefinite Wording. — When the wording is declared 
indefinite or vague it must be cleared up because the 
examiner has so many references to cite that a patent 
specification must be clear and concise. An experi- 
enced person will avoid most of these errors to begin 
with. 

1. A reference numeral ordered for a part mentioned 
in the specification or reference thereto canceled. 

There are a number of references which can be cited 
to support this demand. It is generally advisable not 
to cancel the reference. 

2. Prolixity should be avoided and remedied when 
pointed out. 

Corrections of Drawings. — The examiner has nu- 
merous references to support his demand for corrections 
to drawings, further illustration of details, additional 
drawings, and other points which are necessary for a 
complete illustration and understanding of the invention. 

The main items to be considered are that the inven- 



80 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

tion should be accurately and fully described and 
claimed as far as is possible. There are numerous other 
detail requirements such as arise in each case and which 
cannot receive exhaustive treatment in a book of this 
kind. 

It often happens that an application goes to issue in 
spite of the fact that it is defective in one or more of its 
parts and because of this fact it is sometimes claimed 
that the present methods of patent prosecution are 
loose and faulty. It should be remembered that the 
value of the patent depends upon a full, clear, and con- 
cise disclosure of the invention without any deceptions, 
reservations, indefiniteness, or other defects. 

Amendments are required to be written on separate 
sheets of paper and should always be clear and under- 
standable. Amendments to drawings are often re- 
quired, and in many cases minor changes can best be 
made by the office draftsmen for a nominal fee. All 
sketches to show desired changes are required to be in ink. 

The matter of the prosecution of the claims is per- 
haps the most difficult part of the prosecution. The 
reasons for the rejection of claims are often vaguely 
given or based upon an argument with reference to a 
combination of points from several references. In 
cases in which the reasons for a rejection are insufficient 
a full explanation can be demanded as provided in rules 
65 and 66. It often happens that new references will 
be cited by the examiner in response to amendments 
and it is necessary that the pertinence of the references 
should be understood. 

A knowledge of patent law is almost essential to an 
intelligent prosecution of the claims, and the ability 
of the prosecutor to cite pertinent references in support 
of his argument is of great importance. 

It is an established fact that a reference does not 



APPLICATION FOR A PATENT. PROSECUTION 81 

need to claim an invention if it shows it clearly and this 
fact will not prevent it from anticipating the new applica- 
tion. In fact, in examining an application, very little 
attention is paid to the fact that a new application may 
infringe on other claims, the action being directed to an 
examination into the novelty and utility of the new 
application almost exclusively. That is, the govern- 
ment does not examine into the question of whether or 
not the new application will infringe upon former 
patents, but merely ascertains that the invention is 
worthy of a patent. Many people consider this a 
weakness in our patent procedure since it practically 
means that some sort of a contest or suit or at least an 
undisputable after-examination is necessary to establish 
the validity of a patent. 

The mere allowance of a patent, then, does not estab- 
lish its validity. 

The only steps taken to protect prior inventors in 
regard to the issuance of improvement patents is to 
refuse patents for equivalents and similar matter which 
have been repeatedly held as nonpatentable. 

The foregoing should suffice to show why a rigorous 
prosecution of the claims is essential to a worth-while 
patent. If the claims are properly constructed in the 
j&rst place there is much less difficulty in securing their 
allowance, provided, of course, that they claim the new 
invention to the exclusion of other references. We 
might classify some of the main methods of claim amend- 
ment which are generally employed. 

Cancellation. — This is the least desirable in most 
cases from the inventor's standpoint but in view of 
nonrefutable references it is often necessary. The 
indiscriminate cancellation of claims to procure allow- 
ance is not commendable. It is generally possible to 
substitute other claims for the canceled ones, or to 



82 IXVEXTIOXS AND PATENTS 

amend the claim to avoid cancellation. Unwarranted 
complete descriptions in claims are not desirable. 

Restriction of a Claim. — It is a general practice to 
add to a claim in order to secure its allowance. Such 
an addition is intended to limit the claim to the invention 
and to exclude the claim from matter referred to in the 
examiner's objections. This is difficult and receives 
great abuse. 

Rewriting a Claim. — It is sometimes necessars^ to 
rewrite a claim on account of prolixity or insufficient 
description. 

New Claims. — It often happens that new and 
stronger claims are suggested during the prosecution 
and they are generally filed in place of rejected ones. 
It is sometimes difficult to secure the allowance of ex- 
panded claims and such action may permit the intro- 
duction of additional references on the part of the 
examiner. 

TMienever an amendment is made, particularly when 
new claims are introduced, it is necessarj^ to present an 
argument in support of the amendment. This is also 
true when a reconsideration is asked for. The strength 
of this argument determines, to a considerable extent, 
the action which it will receive at the hands of the 
examiner. The mere statement that the examiner is 
•VNTong or that the new amendment is thought to place 
the case in order for allowance without a specific argu- 
ment logically setting forth the reasons therefor is not 
sufficient. Indeed there are a number of applications 
which reach abandonment through such an error. 

Responsive Action. — The response to an examiner's 
communication must take up the points which he brings 
up and if these are evaded and some other action is 
substituted the action is not considered as responsive 
even if it is allowed in some cases and it does not there- 



APPLICATION FOR A PATENT. PROSECUTION 83 

fore act to prevent an abandonment. This principle 
has been repeatedly upheld and is practically indis- 
putable. Thus, if the examiner directs attention to 
the nonpatentability of one-half of the claims and the 
response does not take up these points, treating of 
other matter instead, it is not responsive. This is only 
a rather incomplete example of nonresponsive action. 

Abandonment. — A?jandonment is the bugbear of the 
inventor and, since in many cases it is unnecessary, it 
should be avoided. A number of cases reach abandon- 
ment through the fault of the prosecutor of the case. 
Most cases of this kind are due to neglect. Under the 
present laws it is required that a case must be com- 
pleted and prepared for examination within one year 
after the filing of the petition. Abandonment also 
results from failure to prosecute a case for one year 
after the date of the last official notice of action in the 
case. See rules 77 and 171.* Abandonment can be 
avoided and if unusual delays are unavoidable for some 
urgent reason a stay can be secured upon due proof. 
This does not necessarily mean that all applications are 
allowed within one year after the filing date, since a case 
can be kept alive over a period of years by responsive 
actions. In a few isolated cases allowances have been 
secured a decade or longer after the date of filing. In 
fact such methods are sometimes emplo3^ed by shrewd 
inventors and lawyers for purposes that will appear later. 
Divisional Case. Division of Claims. — It is well 
established that two or more independent inventions 
cannot be claimed in one application. Thus in an 
application claims for the specific device and claims for 
the process of making it cannot both be allowed. See 
rules 41 and 42. Division is also required in cases in 
which the claims are of a character which make them 
* Rules of Practice pubUshed by the Government Printing Office. 



84 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

belong to two or more classifications or divisions of the 
office at the same time. Thus division would be re- 
quired between claims examinable in divisions 1 and 
10. Notice of division is generally given in the first 
communication from the examiner. The courses open 
are the cancellation of one or the other class of claims 
or the application for a patent covering the other class 
of claims. The latter course is generally followed and 
necessitates the filing of separate applications with 
separate fees, etc. Division can be avoided by fore- 
seeing it in the first place. The several parts are then 
prosecuted as separate applications and generally the}' 
all issue at the same time. Since a divisional case gen- 
erally means an increased expense it should be avoided 
if possible. It is not difficult for an experienced attor- 
ney to foresee the necessity for division in most of the 
possible cases. 

Recently the Patent Office has been almost unreasonable 
in its multiplex requirements for division in some classes. 
While this practice may facilitate minute office classffica- 
tion it also greatly increases the expenses of the inventor. 
In fact, as a result, a very small proportion of the divided 
apphcations are ever filed and prosecuted to issue. This 
is not fair to inventors of complex devices. 

Omitting the cases of abandoned, forfeited, revived, 
renewed, and reissued applications, let us suppose that a 
case has been successfully prosecuted and is ready for 
issue. A notice of allowance is sent to the attorney 
or the inventor, with a request for the final government 
fee of $20 within six months from the date of the notice. 
This six months is a distinct advantage to inventors as it 
allows them to obtain desired foreign patents. . This will 
be more fully discussed later. When the fee is received the 
case is prepared for issue. At this point some cases can 
be withdrawn to allow for special contingencies, if the 



APPLICATION FOR A PATENT. PROSECUTION 85 

final fee has not been paid and if the date and number 
have not been given to the patent, on account of mis- 
takes by the office, or in cases of fraudulent or illegal 
applications, or in case of interference. See rules 164- 
166. It is sometimes necessary to withdraw an appli- 
cation from issue for the valid procurement of foreign 
patents but it is not always possible to do this. 

The patent is in the nature of a grant to the patentee, 
his heirs and assigns, for the term of seventeen years, of 
the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention 
or discovery, which is given a title, throughout the United 
States and the Territories thereof. A copy of the speci- 
fication and drawings is also attached to the grant and 
forms a part thereof. The inventor or his heirs or 
assigns then has the exclusive right to the invention for 
seventeen years, at the expiration of which time it re- 
verts to the public. A patent cannot be extended 
except by an act of Congress. Copies of the patent are 
then printed and a digested portion is published in the 
Official Gazette.* 

Much matter has been omitted in this chapter, a part 
of which will be taken up later. It is not always as 
easy to obtain patents as is indicated in the foregoing 
paragraphs and such cases as require appeals, interference 
proceedings, renewal, reissue, and the like will be con- 
sidered later. 

* The gazette is a very useful publication. Since April 6, 1915 
the present Commissioner of Patents has adopted the author's sug- 
gestion and a classified index of all new patents is now a part of each 
issue. This simple improvement enables one to keep up with new 
improvements in an art at small expense and with a minimum of 
effort. 



CHAPTER IX 

PROTECTING AN INVENTION. THE APPLICATION 

PAPERS 

In Chapter VIII a brief outline of the procedure gen- 
erally necessary to obtain a patent was given. In the 
present and succeeding chapters the various details will 
be taken up more fully. 

How Shall an Invention be Protected? — This ques- 
tion must be answered before applying for the patent 
or patents. Shall a patent for the article of manufac- 
ture or the process for making it be obtained? Shall a 
process or composition of material patent be obtained? 
Shall a design patent be obtained to supplement the 
machine patent? Shall two or more patents be applied 
for or shall the subject matter be vested in a single 
application? These and other questions must be de- 
cided. To be sure the answer is generally not difficult. 
Again there are cases in which the exact procedure is 
difficult to determine and for which the maximum pro- 
tection can only be obtained by filing several applica- 
tions. In any case, the object is to obtain the maximum 
protection which is possible for a given invention. 

It is advisable to foresee possible means for accom- 
plishing the same object in most cases and to so word the 
application as to include such means. Then, too, the 
conditions may make a process patent allowable when 
a composition or article of manufacture patent would 
be refused. It is evident that there are several other 
similar cases which may arise but since similar treatment 
is given to them, further cases require no attention at 
the present. 

86 



PROTECTING AN INVENTION 87 

Further objects in determining the proper protection 
for a patent are to avoid infringing or infringement, to 
secure the broadest protection possible, and to insure 
the apphcation against possible attack at a later date. 

Suppose, for instance, that an improved loose-leaf 
book is invented which 'is of artistic shape and which 
can best be made by machinery of special design. Sup- 
pose further that this machinery is of such a nature 
that a distinct chain of operations is carried out. The 
above example, after a search of previous patents, will 
very likely show the following procedure to be the best 
policy. 

1. Although the article itself possesses some slight 
novelty, only very limited claims can be secured by this 
type of patent owing to the prior art. A single patent 
of this type is obviously too narrow if a substantial and 
lasting business is to be built up from it. Even if the 
patent was secured and the book marketed, it would 
probably not be long before one or more other books 
similar to it but which would not infringe the narrow 
claims would appear. The latter might even be almost 
identical in size and shape and differ in a mere detail. 

2.* A design patent can surely be obtained to cover 
the novel appearance of the book. Such a patent will 
serve to insure a patent as outlined in 1 by reason of 
the fact that it is much less liable to be declared invalid 
in a lawsuit and that it prevents competitors from imi- 
tating the exact shape of the book. Then, too, if the 
patent as outlined in 1 is refused, a design patent will 
probably be allowed and since the book can be marked 
patented, the design patent may form ample protection 
in itself. While it is doubtful if a design patent would 
be of use in the example referred to, this type of patent 

* See Rules of Practice for procedure. Design patents are very 
simple. 



88 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

is fr(H|U{mtly resorted to lor many siinilar cases, such 
as display racks, cabinets, and the like. It has the 
further advantage of being less expensive and easier to 
procure, but it does not of course protcuit the mechanical 
l)art of t\m inv(^uii()n. There are a number of pat(mts 
which are issucul for arti(',l(\s of manufa(!tur(^ and iho 
Iik(^ wliich might be ecjually protected by a (U^sign patient 
on a(!Count of the prior art. 

)i. It is quite likc^ly that the machinery used in making 
the book will ]h\ of such a structure as to afford good 
sul)je(^t matt(^r for a separate ajiplication or api)lica- 
tious. Owing to th(i faci< that a lai'gc^ part of all ma- 
chinery is merely an arrang(Mn(vnt of old parts it is not 
unlikely Ihat a ])atent of this type can be secnu'cul. In 
addition to insuring and reinforcing })atents of thc^ tyi)e 
described undei- I and 2, it is possible that the machinery 
may be ap])li(^al)l(^ to other oi)(M-ations or other ty])es 
of books than tlu^ one under (H)nsideration. If it pos- 
sesses tlu^ latt(U* i)roperty its value may exceed that of 
th(^ other typc^s. 

4. It will V(vry likely be found that the chain of oi)er- 
alions is novel and patentable as a process^ or method. 
'I'his type of pat(Mit may b(^ sufIi(n(Mit in itself if it can 
b(^ secured with sudicient scope. At any rate it serves 
to supi)ort a i)at(Mit or pat(^nts of the otlun* types. Thus, 
if th(^ article cannot b(^ ])rotected tlu^ process patents 
may serve to protect!, it. Tluni, too, tlie process or 
machine previously referred to nuiy so cheap(^n the non- 
l)at(Mitn,ble artich^ or tlu^ lik(^ that a ])at(^nt of this natui-e 
will control tlu^ nuu'ket for the nonpatentable artic^le. 
The latter case is of frequent occurrence. Thus either 
th(^ nuichinery or the procc^ss or both may be of such a 
nature as not only to ])rotect the imi)roved book but 
to control other books already invented or which may 
be invented. 



PROTECTING AN INVENTION 89 

5. In a few cases, it may be possible to combine a 
process and the machiner}^, or a process or machine 
with the article as the subject matter of one patent. 
This is only allowable when the dependence of the two 
are clearly evident. In any case, it is evident that 
much depends upon the wisdom of the choice. All of 
the possible angles of a case should be considered before 
taking a definite course. No mention has been given 
as yet to one other form of protection which may in 
itself or in combination with one or more of the other 
types suffice. This is the protection which a trade- 
mark affords when registered. The many industries 
which rely partly or wholly to a protected trademark 
arc proof of the value of such protection. 

In this connection the practice of needlessly dividing 
an invention into two or more applications when one is 
sufficient for the purpose of increasing fees is worthy 
of note. Such practice is happily not general or exten- 
sive and should not be confused with cases in which 
several applications are essential. 

Can an invention be kept secret and protected with- 
out a patent ? — Probably every inventor has asked this 
question at some time or other. Generally speaking the 
answer is no, but there are some exceptions. It is obvious 
that a machine or article of manufacture could not long be 
kept secret, so the possible cases are narrowed to com- 
positions, processes, and methods. The question is of 
sufficient interest to receive itemized attention as follows: 

Compositions and the Like. — With the present 
development in the art of chemical analysis, there are 
only a very few cases in which a compound can be kept 
secret. For instance, if a man invents and markets 
a paint with novel properties, without securing a com- 
position patent, perhaps a dozen chemists in scattered 
parts of the country are immediately engaged in an 



90 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

analysis of his paint. It is very likely that each of the 
chemists will be able to report the exact composition of 
the paint to his employer within a few days. The 
chemists may even discover means for cheapening the 
paint or improving it. This should illustrate the folly 
of trying to keep most compositions secret. It may 
be further remarked that many concerns keep chemists 
employed for the very purposes which have been men- 
tioned. It is even possible to analyze and patent the 
paint referred to above and to subsequently sue the 
originator for damages as an infringer. An attempt 
to keep a compound secret is thus made hazardous. 
It may be remarked that some compositions cannot be 
patented as is the case with many of the so-called patent 
medicines and in such cases the patent feature consists 
in some sort of a trademark. Thus a patent for a 
combination of alcohol, coloring matter, and water, 
as a cure for consumption and the like would naturally 
be refused a patent, but Dr. Skinnack's Balmoid 
can very likely be registered as a trademark for 
medicines. 

Processes and Methods. — It is well known that 
there are a number of secret processes and methods in 
existence at the present time. It is argued that it is 
the wisest course to keep a process secret instead of dis- 
closing it for a short seventeen-year protection. It is 
quite possible to pursue this course in a number of cases 
and it is actually done. We might mention the case of 
a certain process for making artificial opium, a certain 
process for making a photographic paper, and many 
other known cases. When it is considered that it would 
be difficult or hazardous to apply for and obtain a 
patent for certain processes by reason of the fact that 
it might be difficult to secure a broad protection and 
that such protection only lasts for seventeen years, such 



PROTECTING AN INVENTION 91 

practice is perhaps justified. On the other hand, it 
is extremely difficult to keep a secret and there is a 
possibihty of its loss, theft, or the like. Then, too, if 
another should conceive and patent the same process, 
the originators might become liable to suits for infringe- 
ment. Processes appear to be particularly suited for 
concealment since they offer nothing tangible, except 
the product, for others to work on. Methods offer 
similar advantages. Those who can successfully carry 
out such a method are better protected than would be 
possible with a patent. It may be remarked that the 
cases in which permanent secrecy is possible are very 
few and that many attempts fail for one reason or 
another. Again a process might readily yield more 
profit if patented by reason of the fact that its general 
use could be licensed at a good royalty profit. 

One result of the conditions outlined above is a con- 
siderable number of secret formulas and the like which 
are really of little actual value, or which could be greatly 
improved to benefit the public if published, or which are 
really old and well known but valued as secret. For 
instance, a certain manufacturer of glass was induced to 
pay a round sum for a secret formula for producing a 
certain colored glass. As matters developed it was 
discovered that the expensive formula was well known, 
of little practical use, and obtainable for a few cents in 
book form, together with much other matter. 

On the other hand, there are a few examples of proc- 
esses and compositions which have been patented but 
which might easily have been kept secret for a number 
of years. The Welsbach gas mantle which depends 
upon an exact ratio of the rare earths used is a good 
example of this and it is doubtful if others would possibly 
have discovered the principle if it had not been pub- 
lished. 



92 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

The Specification. — Regardless of the type of patent 
considered, the specification and particularly the claim 
or claims following the specification are the vital and 
most important parts. To begin with it should be 
clearly understood that the inventor must fully and 
completely disclose the invention without restraint, reser- 
vations, deceitful omissions and the like. This is im- 
portant both because of the fact that he owes it to the 
public as a trust and equivalent for the monopoly he 
acquires and because the scope of the monopoly is 
limited to what he discloses and claims. It is absolutely 
essential that the papers be prepared with accuracy, 
precision, care, and completeness. When the subject 
matter is of a difficult or comphcated nature this be- 
comes a very difficult task. It is a matter of surprise 
to the author that an attorney is capable of efficient 
service to inventors of varied classes of inventions. 
Attorneys who are capable of such services represent a 
specialized and novel profession requiring unusual skill 
and capabilities. The accuracy with which this class 
of attorneys can care first for a simple improvement, 
next a complicated machine, then an intricate process, 
and so on, is remarkable, and if attorneys of lesser capa- 
bilities fail in some cases it is not to be wondered at. 
On the other hand, the attorney who is retained may be 
particularly fitted for a certain class of invention by 
reason of his previous experience and the inventor is 
fortunate in having the services of an expert in the 
class to which his invention relates. Or again the in- 
ventor is at a decided disadvantage in case his inven- 
tion is of a nature which is not understandable by or 
completely familiar to the attorney representing him. 
In either case a complete and understandable disclo- 
sure should be made to the attorney. It should be re- 
membered that if the invention is not completely and 



PROTECTING AN INVENTION. 93 

clearly disclosed to the attorney, it will not, in turn, be 
completely and clearly described and claimed in the 
application for patent. 

It is for these and other reasons that the author be- 
lieves that every inventor should have a clear under- 
standing of patent matters so that he can aid his 
attorney as well as watch the procedure. If business 
men are better able to conduct their business by reason 
of a knowledge of commercial law, why should not in- 
ventors become familiar with patent law and proce- 
dure with a similar object in view? 

The specification then is in the nature of a complete 
disclosure of the invention to the public. According to 
the best practice, as suggested in the rules of practice, 
this document consists of seven distinct parts. These 
will now be considered in detail with particular refer- 
ences to items which are not given in the rules of prac- 
tice or published elsewhere as far as the author knows. 

The preamble comprises the name and residence of 
the inventor and gives notice that the title stated therein 
is his invention. The title is an item which admits of 
comment. According to the practice, every invention 
is regarded as an improvement and this word appears 
in the printed forms provided by the Patent Office. In 
most cases this word may be omitted in the title and 
preamble and the author believes that such an omission 
when possible may increase the value of the invention 
slightly when it comes to selling the patent. Of course, 
in cases to which it directly applies this word should be 
included. Like the title of a book, the title of a patent 
should be descriptive and suggestive. The title may 
become of more importance than might at first appear. 
Thus ^'sounding device and the like," suggests a variety 
of possible devices, but nothing definite. Again, a title 
may be of such a nature as to cause it to be classified in 



94 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

a subdivision which is different than that to which it in 
fact belongs. There are many other cases similar to 
these. One result is a needless confusion to persons 
who subsequently make searches either for the purpose 
of purchasing or ascertaining the state of the prior art. 
There are numerous cases in which a patent has been 
entirely overlooked on this account. To this extent 
the office sometimes requires the applicant to change 
or modify the title of an application. Unless the sub- 
ject is inaccurate or of unnecessary length or the like, 
the applicant cannot be forced to change his title. The 
inventor, then, has the right to select and carry out a 
desired title, but ordinarily it is the best plan to choose 
one which accurately suggests the subject matter. The 
gist of the foregoing was aptly stated in a recent de- 
cision. 152 0. G. 957. 
It was held that, 

An applicant should be permitted to retain a title which he be- 
lieves peculiarly fitting or desirable, unless such title is in fact inac- 
curate or improper, or for some other substantial reason. 

The second part of the specification includes a general 
statement of the object and nature of the invention and 
the class to which it relates. In some applications there 
are several objects instead of one and they should all 
be stated. It is also in accordance with good practice 
to include some statements concerning the adaptability 
of the invention, the uses for which it is suited, and the 
like. Such a statement, however, should not be unneces- 
sarily profuse. In some applications, as in the case of 
new processes or arts or the like, it may be necessary to 
include a brief and understandable statement of the 
operation and principles of the invention. It is per- 
missible in such cases to include references such as 
scientific articles from bulletins and journals. Ordi- 
narily such extensive statements are unnecessary. 



PROTECTING AN INVENTION 95 

There have been cases in which the appUcant has 
gone to an absurd extent in this respect, thinking per- 
haps that the value or the patentabihty of the idea 
depended upon such procedure entirely. On the other 
hand, there are too many applications in which such 
statements are incomplete and curtailed. An incom- 
plete statement of the invention is entirely out of place 
in modern patent practice. 

Then there is the general practice of stating the objects 
in a purely legal manner. Such methods often result in 
making the patent unintelligible to a layman and are 
for this reason less desirable than a more extended 
statement in ordinary terms. In any case the chief 
object is to make the invention fully understood within 
the limits of this part of the specification without unneces- 
sary prolixity. 

The third part of the specification is generally very 
brief and merely refers to the nature of the figures in the 
drawings in cases which require such illustration. This 
part is generally limited to such statements as, " Fig. 1 
is a plan view. Fig. 2 a front elevation. Fig. 3 a section 
view of the part 4, and Fig. 5 a perspective view of the 
part 7." 

In the case of design patents, the claim follows after 
this part and the former parts are modified slightly. 
A design specification is very simple and is generally 
brief. 

In either mechanical or art patents a detailed descrip- 
tion of the invention is next given. In the cases which 
require drawings reference is made to the several views 
and the parts are described in detail. This part of the 
specification should be complete and should set forth 
the best mode for constructing the several parts, for 
compounding the compound in the case of compounds, 
the best materials to use, the best mode of carrying 



96 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

out the invention, and the mode of operation; in short 
it should set forth a complete and understandable state- 
ment of the invention. It may happen that the inven- 
tor knows or has used several equivalent materials, 
means, or the like for this purpose and in some cases 
such equivalents may be embodied in suitable state- 
ments. It should be remembered that it is necessary 
to illustrate all of the parts to which reference is made 
in all cases which admit of illustration, and that the 
inventor is generally conceded equivalents without stat- 
ing them. In cases in which an equivalent is an inven- 
tion in itself, but which is associated with the main idea, 
it should be illustrated and described as an alternative 
means for accomplishing the objects. The other require- 
ments for the specification will be found clearly set forth 
in the rules of practice. 

The foregoing referred particularly to the body of the 
specification. Each case may require some special treat- 
ment aside from the general requirements stated. Thus 
improvement patents generally include a statement of 
the prior art, its defects, and how the invention embodied 
in the application overcomes the defects. It is not 
allowable, however, to make decided or unparliamentary 
references to the prior art or to any specific patents or 
patent. After describing the invention, its various 
features, and operation, the applicant then concludes 
with a definite statement or statements of what his 
invention comprises or is. 

The Claims. Part 5. — This statement is of great 
importance in that it sets forth what the inventor asks 
for his monopoly as an equivalent for disclosing the 
invention as set forth in the specification. It clearly 
defines what he has invented and what he asks protec- 
tion for. If it is incomplete, the public is so much the 
gainer and acquires the unclaimed portion without giv- 



PROTECTING AN INVENTION 97 

ing the equivalent seventeen-year monopoly to the in- 
ventor. 

The claims, therefore, constitute the vital part of the 
patent. To the best interests of the inventor they 
must be as concise and clear and as completely cover 
the invention and its equivalents as is possible in view 
of the prior art. It has been repeatedly held that the 
inventor is entitled to protection only for the part of his 
invention which he sets forth in the claims and if he 
neglects to include a part of the invention in the said 
claims it is either understood that he does not claim to 
have invented such parts or that he dedicates them to 
the public. The inventor then acquires a patent only 
on what he claims and forfeits the right to what he does 
not claim even if he has fully described or shown such 
invention in the drawings and specification. 

Stated in other words, the claims of a patent define 
the limits of the patent and matter which is shown but 
not claimed does not belong to the inventor nor can it 
be later construed as belonging to him in case the un- 
claimed parts are subsequently infringed. 

The claims are the pivot about which the fight for a 
hole-proof patent is centered. It requires keen skill to 
lay out the claims for a patent and even keener skill to 
maneuver them in such a manner as will permit their 
allowance. From the commercial point of view the 
value of a patent may be said to be vested solely in the 
claims. No matter how clear and novel the specifica- 
tion may state the invention the patent only covers what 
the claims set forth. 

It is for this very reason that so many patents are 
practically worthless and that so many inventors are 
misled. It is difficult for the layman to comprehend a 
claim or claims and to understand their meaning. Per- 
haps without an exception the average layman can only 



98 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

comprehend a patent from the drawing and specifica- 
tion and it is no wonder that many are under the impres- 
sion that the patent is for these parts of an application, 
when it in fact only covers a small part of what is shown 
and described. This may be due to the condition of 
the prior art, incompetence of the person who prose- 
cutes the application, poor judgment by the inventor, 
the attorney, or the examiner, or to some similar cause. 
The narrowness of many patents may be ascribed to 
two or more of these reasons. 

A " thin " patent may also be due to a too complete 
description of what is claimed. In fact some claims are 
so constructed as to constitute a regular story of the 
invention. The author has examined claims contain- 
ing from two hundred to five or six hundred words in 
one claim. Some of these claims are almost as long as 
an ordinarv^ short specification need be. To be sure 
this kind of claim is readily understandable to a layman 
by reason of the detailed description. But of what use 
is such a claim? Suppose the invention which is thus 
protected (?) to be actually marketable. This illustration 
does not of course include some extremely complicated 
inventions which may require from 75 to 200 words, or 
more for a concise description. If the invention is success- 
fully marketed, how long do you suppose it will be before 
there are Chinese copies of it? A mere change in a detail, 
a mere omission of a part, and the device will not infringe 
the "thin" patent. But suppose the inventor is obdurate 
and sues the infringers. It is only too likely that he vriW 
be told that his patent is invalid or if valid that it is not 
infringed by reason of the fact that it must be closely 
construed as stated in the claims. 

Of course a layman may even regard such an expanded 
claim as affording a better protection than a technical 
concise one, for does it not completely describe the in- 



PROTECTING AN INVENTION 99 

vention? Yes, but altogether too completely to be of 
real value. Puffed up claims may be compared to 
vacuum bulbs, i.e., they are hollow and void inside. 

The gist of the foregoing may be summed up in the 
words that the claims should not be a detailed descrip- 
tion of the exact and complete details of the invention. 
The specification is intended to do this, not the claims. 
The whole story should be told in the specification 
proper, with all of the details, but the claims should com- 
prise only a concise statement of the invention. Of 
course, the claims are naturally limited by the state of 
the prior art in spite of the fact that the inventor may 
think himself entitled to a broader protection. This 
item is generally determined by the examiner. 

On the other hand, the examiner will not of course 
determine the scope of the full invention unless it is 
fully pointed out to him by a complete set of claims. 
If the inventor or his representative is unwise enough or 
careless enough to omit claiming an invention to which the 
inventor is entitled, it is none of the examiner's busi- 
ness. In fact it is the examiner's duty to allow only that 
part of what is presented which is permissible in view 
of the prior art and in accordance with the laws and 
rules of practice. He represents the public and not the 
inventor and can therefore not counsel or aid the in- 
ventor by pointing out where the inventor may secure 
advantage over his client, the public. This fact is pe- 
culiar to patent practice and is imperfectly understood 
by most inventors. It happens only too often that an 
invention having novel points over the prior art is issued 
as covering only one or perhaps two of the parts. Again, 
not a few patents are issued for details of an invention, 
when in fact they might readily have been for the in- 
vention proper. The author has come across a number 
of such patents in preliminary examinations, which in 



100 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

view of the art at their time of issue might easily have 
been claimed broadly. In one case it developed that 
the inventor had actually invented a basic idea in the 
art, but the claims were limited to mere constructional 
details covering in addition a clumsy and inoperative 
structure. There are innumerable other cases of this sort. 

No reader can fail to see the point of the foregoing, 
namely to avoid similar occurrences. Every inventor 
naturally desires the broadest protection possible. It 
is no wonder that a few inventors have become embit- 
tered against the patent system for these and similar 
reasons. They live to see others profit from their ideas, 
their patent attacked and torn to pieces, and another 
reaping a fortune while they obtain no compensation. 
To an ordinary person it is difficult to see why an inven- 
tion, which has been awarded a patent, duly executed 
with seal and all, does not in fact afford them all of the 
protection which* is provided for in the constitution; 
and it is surely disappointing to see dreams of fortune 
and fame disappear lightly, like an ordinary dream. 

The answer is, that it is not the fault of the con- 
stitution, but of the inventor. Either he or his repre- 
sentatives have failed to secure the rights which the 
constitution provides. It is the fault of the inventor or 
his attorney and not of the constitution and in the end 
this must finally appear clear to him. There is in fact 
nothing different in this than in ordinary law. As a 
citizen of the United States for instance he acquires the 
right to vote. If, however, he neglects to properly 
register as required by law, he is denied a vote. Again, 
take the case of an alien who has resided in the United 
States for many years longer than is actually necessary 
to become a citizen. If he neglects to properly apply 
for rights as a citizen, he remains an alien. Many 
other examples involve the same principle. 



PROTECTING AN INVENTION 101 

The case of an inventor who does not properly apply 
for a patent, or who neglects to obtain all of the rights 
which are due to him under the constitution, is no differ- 
ent, except perhaps that he may lose the rights through 
no fault of his own. When it is further remembered 
that it is less difficult to secure all of the rights provided 
by the patent laws, than many of the rights provided by 
other laws, the force of the illustration becomes stronger. 

Another perplexing problem to the average inventor 
who is appljdng for his first patent is just what a claim 
is, does, and protects. He also desires to know what 
the purpose of a multiplicity of claims is; why one claim 
is insufficient; why the claims are made technical and 
unintelligible to him; how many claims his invention 
should have allow^ed; what the claims which he is allowed 
protect; and similar questions. 

If he has trustworthy and reliable counsel, many of 
these points will soon be made clear to him. At any 
rate he is bound to learn from experience. In any case 
it will be found valuable to have some idea of the points 
involved. To this end let us consider the general nature 
and construction of claims. 

Nature and Construction of Claims 

As has already been stated, a claim is a distinct and 
specific statement of the invention, part, improvement, 
or combination, which the inventor declares to be his 
and for which he asks a monopoly for a limited time 
as compensation for disclosing the same to the public. 

It is in accordance w^ith good practice to construct 
claims after a knowledge of the prior art has been ac- 
quired from a preliminary search. The attorney then 
proceeds to construct the claims which he knows will 
cover the invention and which he is reasonably certain 
will be allowed. He will also include claims which will 



102 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

fully protect his client to the best of his ability, but 
which are of doubtful sanction by the examiner who 
will take charge of the case. The tlifficulty with this 
method is that a knowledge of other patents may preju- 
dice or control the nature of the claims to an undesirable 
extent, but it is far l)etter than the practice of construct- 
ing limited claims without reference to the prior art and 
which it is reasonably sure will l)e allowed. The latter 
practice gives the possibility of not claiming an invention 
in the broadest and most protective manner possible. 
The methods of attorneys vary considerabl}' and the 
practices which are not commendal)le have alread}' been 
mentioned. The deliberate limiting of claims with a 
view to obtaining quick allowance and quick fees, with- 
out reference to the actual protection which is afforded 
the client, and similar practices to secure allowance to 
save fees, are also not commendable. 

The construction of claims may be compared with a 
geometrical inoblcm. The data is given in the specifi- 
cation and the claims must be d^a^\^l with reference to 
the data and also to the prior art as it is understood. 
The claims are also constructed Avith reference to proper 
practice, possible equivalents, and possible infringe- 
ment. Further items which control claim construction 
are: reference to and the avoidance of interference with 
the prior art. reference to possible attack at a later date, 
and reference in a few cases, it is sad to relate, to the 
size of the fee which has been obtained. The latter 
item is the only limitation which is not in accordance 
with good practice. 

Let us take an improved safety razor as a concrete 
example. Suppose that the invention over the prior 
art consists in the feature of construction, adjustable 
angle for the handle, a specially narrow blade held in a de- 
mountable frame, and a flexible handle. This is merely 



PROTKCriNC AN INVRN'nON 103 

an arbitrary ('as(\ Supposi* rurUior that ri^Corence to 
the drawinij; anil spocilication showed thai ihc adjustable 
anj2;U^ was secured by a ball-and-soeket jouit , llu^ narrow 
bUide \w\(\ in a shec^t. nu^tal franu^ wedj2;ed into the main 
frame, and the handle made from a sprin«>; eoviu-ed with 
leathiM". 

Supposin*;- that, tlu^ t'ollowiui;' elaim is draftinl, U^t. us 
examine it elos(^ly. 

1. The (H)mhin:i(i(m in ;i saft^iy razor, of a soparahly mount cmI 
bhuio, !i support, a llcxiblt^ liandK^, and moans for ailjustahly con- 
necting the sttiil handle ti) thi* said support. 

If this elaim wimh^ allowed it. would also include^ a 
razor havinjj; a separabU' mountinj;- of a jXHUiliar shai)e, 
a razor havinji; :i dilfcMeut typ(> of llexible handle, and a 
ball and soekc^t, Wvcv, sercnv, or other joint which eould 
be used to makc^ tlu^ handU^ adjustably connected to 
the suii[)ortini!; franu\ Hut. the i)rior art shows that 
there arc* a nundxn- of similar razors which diffi^r only 
in the constructional fc^atun^s. If only the fore^-oin«»; 
claim ^Nvvc pr(\s(M\t(Ml it is cpiitc* likc^ly that it would l)e 
rejected in v'ww of the |)rior art. or if allowinl that it 
might be successfully attacked or avoided at a later date. 
Suppose that the followiuii; claims are also drafted with 
these objects in view. 

2. In a safety razor the combination of a support , a. \v(Hlj>;o-shap<Hl 
moimting adapted to be inserted in the said support, a narrow blade 
\\c\d by the said \ved.o;e-sliap(>d mount ing, and a llexible handle 
adjustably conn(M't(Ml to tlu> said support. 

3. In an apparatus of {\\c class d(>scrib(Hl the combination of a 
narrow blade having a wed}2;e-shap(Hl suppoit , a. main support, means 
for moiinting the wed}j;e-sha{)ed support in the n\ain support, and a 
llexible handle adjustably comuM'tcMl to tlu^ main sui)port. 

4. A safety razor comprisinji; a double su{)port, one of the support 
parts including a shield, a llexible handle, and a universal joint 
between the handle and support members. 



104 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

5. In a safety razor the combination of a narrow blade, a com- 
bined shield and support for the said blade, a holder having a wedge- 
shaped opening for receiving the said support, a handle comprising a 
leather-covered spring, and an adjustable supporting joint between 
the said handle and holder, substantially as and for the purpose set 
forth. 

Other claims might also be drafted to cover the novel 
handle in particular, the novel double holder feature, or 
the wedge-shaped combined support and shield feature. 

None of the claims 1 to 5 could be called basic but in 
view of the prior art they might easily be as broad as 
possible. It will be seen that each claim covers slightly 
different points and while they might all appear similar 
at first sight it will be seen that they cover different 
features. The last claim is perhaps the most limited of 
any and is pretty sure to be allowed. 

Suppose that the claims are actually allowed as pre- 
sented and that the razor is subsequently successfully 
marketed. Suppose also that an infringing razor which 
embraces the flexible handle without the universal joint, 
the narrow blade with a triple support but one of which 
members is a combined support and shield, and triple 
members which are circular instead of wedge-shaped, is 
subsequently marketed. 

If the five claims were upheld as valid it is quite likely 
that the patent would be held as infringed. If one claim 
was held as invalid, there would still be four others 
which were valid and infringed. Or, again, the patent 
might be held valid and infringed only as to claims 
1 and 4. Or, further, all of the claims with the excep- 
tion of the last one might be held to be void in view of 
the prior art. In any case, this example illustrates the 
value of more than one claim. It is of course possible 
that it might be held as no infringement even if all of 
the claims were sound, by reason of the fact that they 



PROTECTING AN INVENTION 105 

would not be interpreted except in a limited manner in 
view of the prior art. 

There are many other examples in which a group of 
claims is valuable. Suppose again that the examiner 
should only allow claim 5 and claim 1 when amended 
to include details. The patent would lose a large part 
of its value when thus protected, since anyone might 
omit a single detail, or substitute for a single part to 
avoid infringement. 

None of the claims 1 to 5 are sufficiently broad, 
with the possible exception of claim 3, to include 
a corn remover embodying substantially the same 
features. 

The reason why the value of a patent depends largely 
on the nature of the claims should be apparent from 
the foregoing. Indeed the various claims of a patent 
are generally construed as constituting separate inven- 
tions. Thus a patent with nine valid claims is relatively 
equal in value to nine separate patents of equal subject 
matter but which have only one claim each. It happens 
frequently that the value of a patent may depend on 
only one or two of the many claims which it embraces 
6r again its value may depend on each and every claim. 
It has been upheld that a patent embracing claims for 
both the general invention and narrower claims for 
detailed parts are not to be regarded as limited to the 
detailed and limited claims. 

Advantages of a Group of Claims. — To sum up the 
advantages of a number or group of claims it may be 
said that a group serves to insure the validity and scope 
of the patent. It is a protective means for preventing 
infringement and avoidance of the patent. If one or 
more of the claims is declared invalid the entire patent 
does not become invalid, but still embraces the valid 
claims. A patent may not be infringed with reference 



106 IXA'EXTIOXS AND PATENTS 

to all but one or two of its claims and still be infringed 
and protected against infringers. 

The foregoing does not however hold true with regard 
to patents in which there is a useless repetition of claims 
having practically the same scope. There are but few 
cases in which a large number of claims are necessary 
or allowable. 

Dissecting Claims 

'Tt is e^'ident that a claim may not be expanded beyond its proper 
content. Xo rule is better settled. And a rule which should be 
equally weU settled is that forbidding dissection of a claim for the 
purpose of anticipation piecemeal. Take the Selden Claim for 
example. The elements could have been found, all of them singly 
and some of them in combination. By such a course the examiner 
could have shown in one patent a running gear with steering mechan- 
ism and a carriage body, in another a gas engine with a power shaft 
and fuel receptacle, in a third a clutch in connection with a shaft, 
and then he could have stated in the dogmatic style of the office 
that it did not require invention to combine these. 

This is the familiar, common practice of the Patent Office. That 
it is wrong is self e^ddent. that it cannot be stopped so long as we 
have the present t}"pe of examiner is also self evident to those who 
have had long experience with the Patent Office. 

But it is otherwise with the courts. They wiU not permit dis- 
secting and anticipation piecemeal. A claim is an entirety and 
must be so treated." — Macomber Eng. Handbook Patents. 

The claims of a patent are generally arranged in order 
with the broadest ones first, but this order is not always 
followed. In view of the fact that only five claims are 
printed in the Gazette, it is considered advantageous 
to have the best claims at the first so that persons re- 
ferring particularly to the Gazette vrdl receive a full 
impression of the scope of the patent. 



PROTECTING AN INVENTION 107 

Certain Types of Claims which are Rejected 

Each case generally requires individual treatment in 
regard to the claims. While there is some latitude as 
to the exact wording of claims, they should always be 
stated in the most concise and clear manner possible, 
without using unnecessary connectives, clauses, phrases, 
modifiers, and the like. It is necessary, however, to 
include all of the parts which are referred to in the same 
claim. Thus if in the case of the razor, which was taken 
for an example, the part, " a support," were omitted 
from claim 1 and the claim read, 

1. The combination in a safety razor of a separably mounted 
blade, a flexible handle, and means for adjustably connecting the 
said handle to a support. 

it would be incomplete because an element, the support, 
which is referred to in the claim, is omitted. See also, 
160 0. G. 1271. 

It is also poor practice to claim the same element a 
number of times in the same claim. This is liable to 
happen in claims which contain the word " means " 
or similar words a number of times and which might 
be construed as being repeatedly referred to in the same 
claim. Such construction is not allowable. 

Indefinite claims are also refused allowance. Vague or 
abstract collections in a claim are also refused and re- 
jected. It may occur to some of the readers that they 
have seen some patents which contained such claims. 
It will probably be found that such claims are in fact 
not of the kind just referred to, or that they are allow- 
able on account of the nature of the patent, or again, 
they may have been allowed through an error. There 
are few cases of this sort. 

Claims for both an article and the process for making 



108 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

it or similar joined inventions can sometimes be em- 
bodied in one application. 
Narrow Claims. — Narrow claims can generally be 

distinguished by such marks as lengthy and detailed 
description, reference numerals in the claim, long modi- 
fiers attached to the elements specified, such terms as 
" substantially as and for the purposes set forth " * and 
the like. It is of course possible in a few cases that 
narrow claims may be of great value. This is particu- 
larly true in arts which are old and which have received 
long and active attention on the part of other inventors. 
Again, there have been cases in which patents limiting 
the invention to practically Chinese copies, have been 
very successful. This is particularly the case in simple 
inventions ha\dng great utility. 

Broad Claims. — Broad claims are generally claims 
which are so worded that they protect the invention 
against possible infringement or avoidance. The term 
is often misused and applied to patents which are 
limited to some extent. When the patent's claims are 
of great scope and include the invention completely as 
well as possible substitutes, improvements, and equiva- 
lents, and include other applications besides a specific 
one to which it is suited, in short if it is very compre- 
hensive in its nature, it is called a basic patent and the 
claims are termed basic claims. There is a relatively 
small number of examples of basic patents. The Bell 
telephone patents, the Selden auto-vehicle patent, and 
the Edison vacuurn bulb lamp patents are examples. In 
fact it seems that the first inventors in the field acquire 
the right to a basic patent, although a number fail to 
properly realize or apply for this right. A patent may 
often be broad without being basic. Thus, it may include 

* This phrase is ambiguous since it is implied whether stated or 
not. It is popularly thought to limit a claim. 



PROTECTING AN INVENTION 109 

some but not all of the equivalents, cover some but not 
all of its possible uses, include some but not all of the 
possible improvements, and so on. There seems to be 
an average between broad and narrow claims to which 
most or at least a large number of the patents belong. 
They are broad in so far as they go, but narrow in so far 
as they do not go. This point may be determined by 
the prior art or may be caused by the lack of ability on 
the part of the inventor or his attorney to realize the 
state of the prior art and to acquire all of the advantages 
possible. A generic claim is one broadly constructed to 
protect a pioneer invention. 

Special Claims: Terms Used: Number of Claims 

Process claims require particular treatment. They 
set forth a sequence of operations and the manner of and 
conditions for the parts of the operation. The order is 
generally given in the specification, but it requires a 
fine perception to draw the claims in the broadest pos- 
sible manner. The conditions are such as temperature, 
the solvents used, catalysts, mode of operation, etc. 
The manner must be so stated as to include possible 
equivalents or substitutes as far as is possible. 

Mechanical claims are generally combinations, but it 
is important that such combinations should not be too 
restricted. It is in accordance with good practice to 
use such terms as " means," " suitable means," instead 
of an exact description of the parts comprising the 
means. This is not always possible, however. 

A combination claim should generally be limited to 
the essential elements. When possible, any series of 
claims should contain separate claims to cover definite 
features which have a marked function. Long series of 
claims are built up in this manner. 

Articles of manufacture are generally given similar treat- 



110 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

ment to that for machines and the like. The exact nature 
of the machine or article may be specified in the claim 
or stated as belonging to a class specified or described. 

A composition of matter generally contains reference 
to the purpose or use for which it is intended and gives 
some latitude as to the exact proportion of the ingredi- 
ents. It may be necessary to include several claims for 
this purpose. 

There are a number of possible viewpoints in claim 
construction and a number of equivalent terms. Thus, 
the terms, embracing, comprising, consisting of, which 
comprises, which consists of, and like terms, imply simi- 
lar or identical meanings. These words are found in 
nearly every claim. The word " said " merely serves 
to identify and refers to a part or means, and aids in 
defining the invention. The word " means " is very 
elastic and is substituted for a variety of words and 
phrases describing the details of a part or the like. The 
many other words used in claim construction are largely 
technical words for the sake of clearness in definition. 
In studying a claim, such terms can be readily under- 
stood by reference to a good dictionary. 

Claims should be as short as is consistent with defini- 
tion and clearness. There are a few patents containing 
claims with as few as five or six words. A good average 
length for an ordinary invention seems to be from 
forty to seventy-five words. The average number of 
claims which are allowed varies and may be a net aver- 
age of from four to six. Many patents contain from 
ten to forty claims and a few contain as many as 75 to 
125, or more. On the other hand, the number of patents 
with one or two claims is relatively large. 

Claim Analysis. — In studying a claim or comparing 
it with other claims the following method of analysis 
will be found advantageous. A claim can generally be 



PROTECTING AN INVENTION 111 

divided and subdivided into definite components and 
subcomponents. Some claims also have modifiers to 
the components and subcomponents. When thus split 
up the relative merits of a series of claims or any two 
claims can be found. When the claims under examina- 
tion contain different terms, equivalent terms can be 
substituted to make them have a common value for 
comparison. Thus the word " round " may be substi- 
tuted for '^ annular " etc. Consider the following claims. 

1. A condenser comprising a dielectric having its ends divided 
into diverging portions. 

2. A condenser comprising a dielectric divided at a point of stress 
into portions which are separated so as to leave between them a 
cavity for containing a material with properties different from said 
dielectric, whereby the capacity of said dielectric is varied. 

Analysis of Above Examples. 

(1) 1. A condenser 

a, comprising a dielectric 
aa, having its ends divided 
aaa, into diverging portions. 

(2) 1. A condenser 

a, comprising a dielectric 

aa, divided at a point of stress 

aaa, into portions which are separated 
aaaa, to leave between them a cavity 
aaaaa, for containing a material 
aaaaaa, with properties different 
from said dielectric 
hhbhb, whereby the capacity of the 
said dielectric is varied. 

Case (2) also allows of other analysis arrangement. 

The utility of this method should be apparent. 

Functional Claims. — Claims are often rejected by 
the Patent Office examiners on the ground that they are 
functional. Just what a functional claim is has never been 



112 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

well understood by the majority of those concerned. A 
board composed of Examiners Rich, Henry, Maxson, and 
Newton, the latter now being assistant Commissioner has 
given the Patent Office definition and the action for such 
claims. This definition is very recent (Nov. 12, 1913), 
and was prepared as an '' answer or substance of an 
answer deemed worth 100 per cent" in an examination 
for promotion in the Patent Office held on this date. 

Question 1. (a) What is a functional claim? 

(h) State the different classes and the proper action 
in each when presented. 
Answer or substance of answer deemed worth 100 per cent. 
2. 1. "A functional claim is one defined by terms of function or 
operation, rather than by substantive terms. There are four forms 
of functional claims. 

(1) Claims covering a function, result or effect, not a product 
or composition of matter. Such claims should be rejected for 
this reason, and also on any pertinent art. 

(2) Claims covering the function of a machine or apparatus, 
usually in the form of a method. Such claims should be rejected 
for this reason and also on any pertinent art. 

(3) Claims w^hich recite the functions of elements, not their 
structure. Object to the form of such claims and reject on any 
pertinent art. 

(4) Means, etc., for doing certain things. Claims which define 
the structure of mechanisms by the results produced. Object to 
the form of such claims and reject on any pertinent art. See ex 
parte Kundsen, 72 O. G. 589; C. D. 1895, 29 ex parte Bitner, 140 
O. G. 256; C. D. 1909, 32." 

Courtesy Mr. F. L. Pittman, Asst. Examiner, U.S. Pat. Off. 

A better and more complete idea of claims and speci- 
fications can be gained by a close study of the patent 
records and new patents as they are issued. This is a 
subject with which every inventor and manufacturer or 
investor should be familiar. It is just as important as a 
knowledge of ordinary business laws. 

Parts 6 and 7 are the signatures of the inventor and 
witnesses and require no further comment. 



CHAPTER X 
OTHER POINTS OF PATENT PROCEDURE 

Blanks for the petition and oath may be obtained 
gratis from the Patent Office. The petition requires no 
special comment. The oath, however, is a document 
worthy of attention. 

Oath. — Under the present practice the execution of 
the oath is made particularly complicated. The inven- 
tor is required to either swear or affirm (this last pro- 
vision is for those who have objections to swearing), 
that he is and verily believes himself to be what is set 
forth in the form. If he has an attorney, he will be in- 
structed as to the steps necessary for the proper execu- 
tion of the oath. There is some little " red tape " to 
the oath and the readers would do well to clearly 
understand the requirements as stated in the rules of 
practice and the amendments to the rules. The oath 
generally means a slight extra expense for the notary's 
fee. The rule requiring a ribbon or tape to be passed 
one or more times through all of the sheets of the appli- 
cation is sometimes bothersome to the inventor. This 
provision is intended to prevent alteration, addition, or 
subtraction to the sheets after the oath has been executed. 

Drawings. — The rules of practice are very clear with 
respect to the requirements of drawings. In addition 
it may be remarked that the drawings should be as con- 
sistent to the rules as is possible and that the drawings 
should be as simple as is possible with respect to clear- 
ness. The suggestion relative to a figure for the Gazette 
is a good one and is to the interests of the inventor. 
When outside draftsmen are employed to prepare the 

113 



114 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

drawings they should be specifically told that the draw- 
ings are for patent filing. The Patent Office offers the 
services of the office draftsmen to inventors for a reason- 
able fee. This last offers the additional benefit of 
accuracy in form and an insurance of satisfactory work. 
Some attorneys have their own drawing corps and a few 
make this feature quite a profitable part of their business. 
The practice of filing an unnecessary number of sheets 
of drawings is poor practice and is not sanctioned by the 
Patent Office. In practice the rules must be quite 
closely adhered to. A special drawing paper with the 
border lines already printed is obtainable at most dealers 
in draftsmen's supplies. The use of numerals is better 
practice than the use of letters in most cases. It is in 
accordance with good practice to file prints of the draw- 
ings at the time the papers of an application are filed. 
These prints can be ordered from the office for the 
nominal fee of 15 cents each for the small size. It is 
advisable for the inventor to retain a complete copy of 
the specification and drawings. 

Models. — Models are seldom required. The office 
and most of the attorneys specifically state that they 
are not necessary. The practice of a few attorneys to 
advise the construction of a model, also specifying the 
name of the model maker for the purpose of profit, is not 
commendable. Models, however, are often valuable 
aside from their use in preparing and filing a case, since 
they are good evidence in case of contests and are good 
means for explaining the merits of the invention to 
possible purchasers. 

Appeals. — We have already discussed how an inven- 
tor may lose the rights which in fact belong to him 
through carelessness, neglect, or through no fault of his 
own. It has also been pointed out how the Government 
has provided protective measures for the inventor in 



OTHER POINTS OF PATENT PROCEDURE 115 

other respects. The Government has also provided 
means whereby an inventor may partially or wholly 
regain the rights which he has lost by reason of mis- 
takes in his patent as allowed. He also has recourse 
when he receives an adverse decision during the prose- 
cution of the application. 

It often happens that repeated arguments w^ill not 
convince an examiner in regard to important points. 
Interviews with the examiner as provided by rule 152 
may sometimes clear up points of dispute, and a satis- 
factory understanding may be arrived at. 

However, it may happen that the examiner is ob- 
durate and after the two rejections as required by the 
rules of practice recourse may be had by appeal to the 
examiners-in-chief. The grounds which may be in- 
volved are stated in rule 133 and include most of the 
cases which admit of appeal. 

The fee required by the government is only $10 and 
for this reason this method is often resorted to. It is 
in the nature of a simple hearing in which both the 
examiner and the applicant present their points of view. 
The only feature which is not commendable is the useless 
appeal of hopeless cases or the appeal on points which 
arise through the incompetency of the attorney in the 
case. The appeal is then decided for or against the 
applicant. A favorable decision merely reinstates the 
case for further action and it is subject to other objec- 
tions which may require repeated appeal. In the case of 
an unfavorable decision further appeal may be taken. 

This second appeal is to the Commissioner and the 
government fee is $20. It may be remarked that the 
additional attorney's fees generally bring the cost of an 
appeal to two and a half or three times the government 
fee alone. The points involved in appeals are quite 
fully established and it is seldom that a case involving 



116 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

radically new points appears. The attorney can judge 
with a nicety as to the propriety of an appeal in nearly 
all cases. It is only seldom that a case is reversed on 
appeal and it must have merits to receive favorable 
decisions. Even a favorable decision on this appeal 
merely puts the case back to the examiner for further 
action and it is liable to further objections as before. 

There are some cases which can be taken direct to the 
commissioner from the examiner as provided in rule 145 
without the payment of a government fee. This pro- 
vision applies particularly to the settlement of disputes 
in matters of form. 

In any case appeals always serve to delay the date of 
allowance of an application. Ex parte cases are further 
appealable to the Court of Appeals of the District of 
Columbia. Interference cases are similarly appealable 
as in ordinary ex parte cases. It may happen that the 
decisions of both the Commissioner and the examiners- 
in-chief will be reversed on appeal to the Court of Appeals, 
but the Commissioner is generally upheld by the court. 

Abandoned Application. — As has already been dis- 
cussed, an abandoned application generally results from 
the neglect or incompetency of the attorney or person 
conducting the prosecution. To revive an abandoned 
application a clear showing must be made that the delay 
in the prosecution was unavoidable. The cause may be 
ascribed to the examiner, deaths of attorney or inven- 
tor, or other unavoidable circumstance, but it must be 
convincing. Perhaps one of the best cases to illus- 
trate is the recent Mattulah case. The decision of the 
Commissioner refusing to revive the case was reversed 
by the Court of Appeals. The latter decision was only 
in accordance with equitable treatment to the widow 
of a mistreated inventor and illustrates the fact that the 
Patent Office is not always free from error. 



OTHER POINTS OF PATENT PROCEDURE 117 

A new application can be filed in place of an aban- 
doned application with new drawings and papers. The 
case is then open to prosecution and rejection the same 
as a new case, except that the same references and re- 
jections are quite likely to reoccur. 

Forfeited Application. — Unlike an abandoned appli- 
cation, a forfeited application is withheld from issue 
solely on account of the failure of the applicant to pay 
the last fee. This may be due to inability or neglect. 
The remedy is a renewal. 

The inventor thus has several preventive and insuring 
measures. When a case is forfeited or abandoned it is 
not cited as a reference in other cases. A forfeited 
application does not therefore protect an inventor. 
Thus if another applies for a patent on the same inven- 
tion as is embodied in the forfeited application, no 
notice will be given to the party whose case is 
forfeited. 

Interferences. — Another bugbear of inventors is an 
interference proceeding. It is one of the most expensive 
and most unwelcome parts of patent procedure. To a 
rightful inventor it means a very expensive delay and it 
may even mean the loss of his patent right. In the 
ideal sense it is a proceeding to determine the priority 
between two or more inventors who make application 
for substantially the same invention. In practice, how- 
ever, it is often an unsatisfactory method, particularly 
to an inventor of limited means. Then, too, there are 
many cases which show obvious abuses. At any rate 
the proceeding is one of the most complicated parts of 
patent procedure. Some idea of its complication may 
be gained by reference to the rules of practice, a large 
part of which is taken up by the interference proceedings 
rules. The reader is referred to these rules for a more 
complete account of these proceedings. The discussion 



118 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

in these pages will be limited to a few points concerning 
expense, misuses, and points of note in such procedure. 

Interference proceedings should be avoided whenever 
possible. It is often found less expensive to settle with 
a party in preference to entering a contest with him. 
The party thus paid forfeits his rights. There are even 
cases in which the party thus paid off would be the loser 
in case the proceedings were carried out, and some par- 
ties even manipulate their applications to such an end. 
This is one of the objects which such parties have in 
keeping an application alive over a period of years. 
When another party comes along with a perfected in- 
vention they are declared in interference even if the 
former party's invention is inoperative or the like. The 
party can then make a successful proposition to forfeit 
his rights so that the new party can avoid the costly 
proceedings. 

No one can deny that the proceedings are costly. 
Numerous matters of form have to be adhered to, costly 
depositions from high-paid expert witnesses and similar 
expenses must be incurred. Often the depositions taken 
are of a perjurious nature and the inventors go to great 
lengths in an attempt to establish priority. It is even 
possible that the case will be decided in an unsatis- 
factory manner in favor of the party of least merit. A 
study of some interference cases reveals practices which 
are not commendable to say the least and some even 
savor of a criminal nature. Attorneys in such cases 
often go to unnecessary lengths and bring a vast quan- 
tity of irrelevant matter into the case. The attorneys 
generally require a large fee in any interference case, 
since it takes up considerable time. Many cases are 
purposely lengthened with a view to obtaining larger 
fees and tiring the weaker party out. Again, witnesses 
give unreliable and deceitful testimony. Even if a case 



OTHER POINTS OF PATENT PROCEDURE 119 

is decided, it may not become effective until appeals 
have been taken to the last resort, the Court of Appeals 
of the District of Columbia. It is no wonder that 
rightful inventors lose in such cases at times, particu- 
larly if they are persons of limited means. Needless to 
say, success in such proceedings depends largely upon 
the ability of the counsel which the inventor retains. 
Generally the individual merits of a case are considered 
and priority awarded to the party who conclusively 
proves his merit. The inventor who proceeds with the 
greater diligence, who reduces the invention to the prac- 
tical point first, and the inventor who produces the most 
comprehensive evidence generally wins. Even when an 
interference is finally decided the winner merely has his 
case reinstated for further prosecution and is open to 
further rejections or interferences. Happily, however, 
the relative number of interference cases compared to 
the total issue of patents is very small and only a frac- 
tion of one per cent. The cases which are involved are 
generally of a valuable nature. Only too many such 
cases are decided in a manner which is not equitable to 
the rightful inventor. The loser at this point in the pro- 
cedure certainly receives little for his disclosure of in- 
vention, particularly if he is a deserving party as is 
frequently the case. 

The Court of Appeals has been termed the last resort 
in the foregoing paragraph. This is not always the 
case, however, for decisions of the Court of Appeals are 
not final and the losing party has a further right to file a 
bill in equity against his rival, under the provisions of 
section 4915 of the Revised Statutes. This bill may be 
filed in the judicial district in which the rival may be 
found, and the plaintiff may make an entirely new 
record of testimony, calling as many witnesses as before, 
or more. If this case is decided against him, he may 



120 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

appeal once more to the United States Circuit Court 
of Appeals in that circuit which embraces the former 
court. All of these appeals are costly and consume a 
great amount of time. This part of patent procedure is 
condemned by many and it is certainly expensive and 
unfair to the rightful party to say the least. In the 
meantime, while the rival inventors fight for the patent 
right, the patent itself is long delayed, to the hardship 
of the general public. The long-drawn-out appeals are 
certainly of little use and are often a mere excessive and 
expensive weight and burden. Similar delays and ex- 
pense are involved in infringement suits and these will 
be discussed later. Perhaps a clearer idea of the time 
and expense involved in an interference proceeding with 
appeals against a stubborn rival may be best understood 
from the following table. The various steps are set 
forth without detail together with the time generally 
consumed. It should be further remembered that each 
attorney in the case probably receives from twenty-five 
to one hundred or more dollars per day for his services, 
while expert testimony often costs about fifty dollars 
per day for each expert. The minor witnesses are also 
a considerable expense, not to mention printing and 
many other incidental items. There is a commendable 
movement at the present time to reform this part of 
patent procedure to make it simpler and more certain. 
The movement is directed particularly to the curtail- 
ment of the number of appeals which may be taken. 

This brief recital should convince all readers of the 
desirability of avoiding interference proceedings and of 
retaining indisputable proofs of their invention and 
priority to provide against possible contests. 



OTHER POINTS OF PATENT PROCEDURE 121 

Table Showing the Possible Steps in a Priority Contest under 
the Present Laws. The various steps are not unduly exaggerated. 
The table should conclusively show how unsatisfactory and expensive 
such proceedings may be. Luckily, there are but few cases which 
endure the full hmit of appeal. The total expense involved in an 
important case is enormous. Can the reader calculate how long 
a poor inventor or one of moderate means would last? 

Note: In these interferences the first applicant is called the 
senior party and does not have to submit proofs until after the 
junior or later applicants have filed priority proofs. The senior 
applicant has some advantage because the junior applicant may fail 
to take the necessary testimony on account of the expense involved. 
The senior applicant then gets the patent without a fight. 

1. Declaration of interference. Depositions taken by both sides 
and proofs of priority submitted and argued to the Examiner of 
Interferences. 

2. Examiner of Interferences reads the record of testimony and 
awards priority to one of the claimants, after a delay of from two to 
four months. He also fixes a limit of appeal which is generally 
twenty days or more. If the losing party should not appeal the 
case ends at this point. 

3. First appeal is to the Board of Examiners-in-chief, a tribunal 
of three. A hearing is set for a day one to two months distant. 
Another argument and showing is made at the hearing. 

4. In about two to six months later the Examiners-in-chief decide 
and indicate the winner and another limit of appeal of twenty days 
or more is set. 

5. The next appeal is taken to the Commissioner, in person. The 
date for the hearing is again set for one to two months later, when 
another argument and showing is made. 

6. The Commissioner's decision is then forthcoming at any time 
from one to four months later. If the loser persists, notice of appeal 
may be again given within forty days of the date of the judgment 
and may docket the appeal within another forty days after the 
notice. 

7. The appeal is then heard and decided. The time taken varies 
and may amount to six months or more, depending on the time of 
the year and other conditions. 

8. A bill-in-equity may be filed as a further hazard to the winner 
in the other appeals. The time consumed will probably amount to 
six months or more for preparation and it may take another two or 
more months before judgment is entered. An entirely new record 
may be taken for the suit. 

9. Appeal from the foregoing suit may be taken to the United 
States Circuit Court of Appeals of the circuit which embraces the 
former court. This appeal may be delayed six months after the 
entry of the decree of the former court. 

10. It may be six months before this appeal will be heard and a 
few months later the final decision may be handed down. 



122 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

Disclaimers. — The provisions for disclaimers are 
quite distinctly set forth in the rules of practice. Dis- 
claimers are generally entered to avoid infringement or 
to enforce infringement. The latter is a necessary step 
before damages can be recovered, since a party would 
not be an infringer of that part of a patent to which a 
disclaimer should be properly entered. Disclaimers 
should never be entered without good legal advice and 
proper showing. A disclaimer may act to save a patent 
from being declared invalid in many cases and is one of 
the remedies which has been provided for an inventor. 

Reissue. — It may happen that a patent is issued in 
spite of the fact that it is defective in one or more of its 
parts. The inventor luckily has a remedy in such a 
case, if he can prove that the error has arisen through 
inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without fraud- 
ulent or deceptive intention. Such a case should be 
fully investigated by good counsel before being entered. 
Ordinarily a reissue patent cannot contain expanded and 
broader claims, and is intended merely to correct un- 
avoidable errors and mistakes which are inherent in the 
specification, claims, or drawings or all. It is a protec- 
tive measure for the inventor and acts as a cure for 
errors which he cannot otherwise remedy. A reissue 
is not in any sense a renewed patent and merely lasts 
during the seventeen years beginning with the date of 
the original patent. Inasmuch as the reissue applica- 
tion is subject to examination and rejection as in the 
case of an ordinary application, it is one which is haz- 
ardous to an extent and which must be prosecuted with 
particular precision and care. Rules 85 to 92 give a 
clear statement of the requirements and limitations of 
reissues. The reissue must be applied for within two 
years from the date of the original patent. 

Both reissues and disclaimers must be assented to by 



OTHER POINTS OF PATENT PROCEDURE 123 

any assignees of the patent. The primary object of 
a reissue is to make a patent valid which is invaUd for 
some reason or other, or to make the scope of the patent 
sufficient when it has been neglected through error, or 
the like. The expense involved is generally equal to or 
in excess of that required for an ordinary case. A re- 
issue may often impart considerable value to an other- 
wise worthless patent. Reissues can generally be avoided 
by a proper prosecution and preparation of the original 
application. 

Division. — Ordinarily two or more inventions can- 
not be shown and claimed in a single application. The 
independence of the invention may be so clear that 
division will be demanded before examining the merits 
of the case. It is a rule of the office that matter examin- 
able in two or more divisions and which can be separated 
into such divisions, must be so separated. Reissue 
applications may also require division. Each part then 
becomes a separate application, with separate fees, etc. 
The several parts are generally issued simultaneously. 

In General. — The Patent Office does not keep foreign 
patents for sale, does not print a complete index of 
patents classified according to search classes, does not 
give notice of receipt of ordinary amendment letters 
until after the same have been acted upon, and does not 
at the present time sufficiently warn inventors against 
certain attorneys and brokers. These are all points 
which it is hoped will be included in the duties of the 
Patent Office at an early date. 

The matter of giving a receipt for communications 
amending applications is one of particularly important 
value. Under the present practice communications 
respecting other matters, as for instance requests for 
the rules of practice or the like, receive immediate atten- 
tion, but communications respecting pending applica- 



124 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

tions are filed to await their turn and no notice of their 
receipt is given to the sender. The appHcant is not 
definitely protected against loss in transit in this manner. 
Foreign applicants are particularly at a disadvantage in 
this matter and there is no definite manner of knowing 
whether or not the office has received the communication 
until it has been acted upon, which may be weeks or 
months later. In at least a few cases, lack of such ser- 
vice has resulted in otherwise preventable abandon- 
ment. Registered mail service can of course be used. 

It is well known that a complete index of all the 
patents issued, properly classified, would be a very 
bulky volume. Then too the classification is continu- 
ally undergoing changes. The author has therefore 
proposed that a separate index be printed for each class 
or subclass. The idea is to facilitate the examinations 
into the prior art before applying for a patent and for 
similar purposes. Such an index would be particularly 
useful to inventors and others outside of the Capitol 
city, as well as to those residing at Washington. With 
a file of Gazettes a tolerably complete search could be 
intelligibly made, and copies of relevant patents ordered. 
To be of value, such classified indexes would naturally 
have to be revised or supplemented at frequent time 
intervals to make them complete and reliable. The 
task would not be a small one, but it seems evident that 
it would be well worth while. There have, of course, 
been several partially complete indexes printed in years 
past, but these are of little use at the present time. The 
Official Gazette might also be arranged in an order 
coherent with the respective divisions of the Patent Office 
to facilitate reference to new patents as they are issued.* 

* During this writing this has been partially carried out and the 
class and subclass follow the title of a patent. The item of an 
index by class and subclass is still unprovided. 



OTHER POINTS OF PATENT PROCEDURE 125 

It would seem that the matter of incompetent or 
fraudulent attorneys and brokers would not require 
repeated mention because of former exposures, Patent 
Office provisions, and postal authorities' provisions. It 
is nevertheless a fact that new schemes are constantly 
being hatched and operated to defraud the inventors. 
Every once in a while one or more of these schemes are 
exposed and stopped, but new ones always seem to take 
their place. The names of such persons and concerns 
should be prominently displayed in the Official Gazette 
upon evidence (not long-drawn-out legal evidence, but 
satisfactory immediate proofs). 

Every person — inventor, manufacturer, investor, or 
attorney — should combine to rid the inventors of the 
persons above mentioned, and all evidence should be 
immediately and fully forwarded to the Post Office or 
the Patent Office. The chief reason why some of these 
continue to flourish is the lack of sufficient evidence 
against them. When this is supplied, the rest should 
not be difficult. 

Joint .Inventors, Employer and Employee. — A per- 
plexing point to most inventors is the relative rights 
to two or more persons when they are joint inventors, 
an inventor and a capitalist, or an employer and an 
employee. 

In the first place, if a patent is issued to two or more 
persons when only one of them is the inventor and is 
issued as if the persons were joint inventors, it is not 
valid.* When an inventor is supported or financed by 
a capitalist he generally assigns a part interest or the 
whole interest in the invention to the said party in 

* This has sometimes been done, as in the case of patents taken 
out in the name of a president of a concern, exclusively, though 
made by employees. If discovered this would render the patent 
invalid. 



126 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

return for a certain sum, wages, or other compensation. 
In such a case, the patent issues to both parties mentioned 
or to the capitahst alone as assignee but the invention 
is credited to the rightful inventor and not to both the 
inventor and the capitalist. There is, then, an important 
difference between joint inventors and joint owners. 
No amount of money can validly make a party who is 
not an inventor a part or joint inventor of that which 
another invents, but he can become a part or the sole 
owner of the patent rights by means of proper assign- 
ments. The matter of assignments will be discussed 
later. 

An inventor may conceive the fundamental idea of an 
invention and then employ others to make a model, 
drawings, or a full-sized machine, without losing his 
rights. If the other parties make changes or improve- 
ments while thus employed, the entire invention in- 
cluding such changes and improvements belongs to the 
first party, the inventor. This point is very equitable 
to inventors who have little or no mechanical ability. 
It is generally conceded, however, that if parties so 
employed make radical changes requiring great inven- 
tion or invention of equal or greater amount than the 
original party exercised, or invention which does not 
depend on the original party's invention but which is 
radically different, it does not belong to the first party 
unless specifically agreed upon by proper contracts. 
It is a common practice at the present time to employ 
such assistance or assistants and the inventor generally 
protects himself with a contract in which the assistants 
forfeit their rights, in inventions and improvements 
which they may conceive, to him. 

If an employee invents a machine or the like after 
he has used the tools and workshop of his employer to 
experiment with and perfects the said invention, the 



OTHER POINTS OF PATENT PROCEDURE 127 

entire right, title, and interest in the patent belongs to 
the employee with the exception of the shop right, which 
the employer acquires to make use of the said invention 
in his line of business. The patent must be taken out 
in the name of the employee in such a case, and unless a 
specific contract with other provisions is in existence, 
the employer acquires no other title to the invention 
except the shop right just mentioned. These points are 
very equitable to employees and enable them to exer- 
cise their inventive faculty without fear of enforced 
forfeit to their employer. Many employers require a 
written agreement from the employee to assign all 
inventions which he conceives and perfects while in 
their employ, and in such cases, the foregoing does not 
hold true. 

A mere suggestion to a party giving the gist of an 
idea but no explanation of the means for carrying it 
out does not make the party giving the idea the true 
inventor if the other party subsequently embraces the 
idea in a practical form by supplying the missing means. 
This point is also negatived by other contracts which 
may be made between the two parties. These points 
are soundly established and have been repeatedly upheld. 

Public Use. — When an inventor allows other persons to 
use his invention generally, with or without compensa- 
tion, or uses the invention himself for profit as distinguished 
from experimental purposes, such use becomes ''public- 
use" if it continues for a period of two years before an 
application for a patent is made, and a valid patent 
cannot be obtained. Proof of a single instance of 
prior knowledge and use before the date of an invention 
of the patentee, renders a patent void. These points 
make it practically impossible to profit from most 
inventions without having them patented before putting 
them, into use. 



128 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

Cost of Patents. Extensions. — No patent costs 
more than another as far as the usual government fees 
are concerned, whether one is extremely difficult and 
complicated or another very simple or not. The fees 
and terms for all mechanical and process inventions and 
improvements are uniform as far as the government is 
concerned. Attorneys of course charge according to 
the nature and difficulty of a case so that the total 
expense of a patent may amount to many times the 
government fees in some cases. 

At the present time a patent cannot be extended after 
it has expired, and the law must be amended to provide 
for such extensions by an act of Congress. Many in- 
ventors and manufacturers consider seventeen years too 
short a time for the monopoly which is given them under 
the present law, and there have been several attempts 
to increase the term of monopoly upon payment of cer- 
tain fees and the like. All such attempts have not been 
successful and in view of the present opposition to legal 
as well as illegal monopoly it does not seem likely that 
a more liberal policy will be taken in the near future. 

When to Apply for a Patent 

Attorneys as a class generally urge prompt filing of patent applica- 
tions for obvious reasons of their own and in view of the proscrasti- 
nating tendencies of human nature much may be said in favor of 
this course. When an apphcation is filed too early, the apphcant 
is reasonably sure to make material changes and improvements only 
to find that he cannot alter his filed application. Accordingly a 
new or additional application may be needed and the patent ex- 
aminer may decide that the second application is unpatentable over 
the original application. The advantages of prompt filing of applica- 
tions are however quite substantial and obvious. 



CHAPTER XI 
PATENT RIGHTS AND HOW THEY ARE UTttlZED 

The Rights of the Patentee. — If indeed a patent is 
difficult to obtain, for some might well refute such a 
supposition, it is well worth all of the efforts which have 
been expended to obtain it. It grants a right to the 
patentee which is unique and which is of wider scope 
and greater import than almost any other right which 
may be obtained. 

By complying with all of the requirements provided 
and imposed by statute, the inventor acquires in fact 
three great rights of monopoly; namely, 

1. The exclusive right to make his invention for the 
full statutory term of seventeen years. 

2. The exclusive right to use his invention for the 
full statutory term of seventeen years, and 

3. The exclusive right to sell his invention for the 
full statutory period of seventeen years. 

All of these rights are granted as exclusive rights 
throughout the territory of the United States. These 
rights are also granted to his heirs or assigns. A patent 
thus becomes very valuable property in spite of the 
fact that the inventor may die or become otherwise 
incapable. 

In addition to the foregoing rights the inventor also 
acquires the following, by reason of the interpretation 
of the foregoing according to well-established principles. 
These principles have been repeatedly upheld and are 
practically indisputable under the present statutes. 

The patentee obtains the right to exclude all others 

129 



130 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

from making, using, or selling the patented products, 
machines, or processes. If another makes, uses, or sells 
(singly or combined) the patented invention, without 
his will and consent, he may obtain an injunction against 
further infringement as well as a recovery of the profits 
thus made, by applying to the courts. Identical rights 
are enjoyed by the party or corporation who purchases 
the patent outright. The restricted right to make, sell, 
or use the invention may be sold or rented as desired by 
a system of licenses. The rights may be divided, classi- 
fied, restricted, and disposed of in any manner desired. 
The owners of a patent also acquire the right to monopo- 
lize an unpatented article through their ownership of 
the patent. The principles underlying this broad form 
of legal monopoly can be best understood from a study 
of the recent Dick case, and the reader is referred to the 
record of this case. A complete copy of the decision 
may be obtained for 10 cents by ordering a copy of the 
Official Gazette dated March 19, 1912.* It may also 
be remarked that the decision in this case has stirred up 
a great wave of opposition which may mean hasty leg- 
islation to the detriment of the inventor. 

The usual method employed is to license the machine 
for use only on condition that all of the supplies should 
be purchased from the owners. Thousands of dollars 
are diverted into the pockets of the owners in this man- 
ner. The courts have also upheld the right of the owners 
to regulate the selling price. Thus a certain make of 
safety razor is licensed for use only when sold at a 
specified price, e.g., $5. Although such razors in fact 
cost less than one dollar to manufacture, and are sold 
to the retailer for about $3, the latter is required, under 
penalty of being declared an infringer of the patents, to 
sell the same at a uniform price of $5. Further, the 
* See also digest in Appendix. 



PATENT RIGHTS 131 

customer in buying the razor, automatically acknowl- 
edges the patent and contract and may not sell it second 
hand for less than $5 under a similar penalty. Further, 
it is provided that a mere attempt to resharpeh the 
blades opens him to the charge of infringement. There 
are numerous other examples, similar to this one, with 
which the readers are doubtless familiar. 

According to a recent decision (Bauer Co.,-0'Donnell j 
case), a limitation has been placed upon price restric- ' 
tions under the patent statutes. A nerve tonic made 
by a patented process was sold under a price restriction' 
to a retailer, who cut the stipulated price. O'Donnell, 
the retailer, contended that he could disregard .the 
license sale restrictions, selling the product at his own 
price or even giving it away, because he purchased the 
tonic from a wholesaler and not directly from the owners 
of the patent. Resale prices, he argued, could not be 
controlled in this case by the patentee, for the patentee 
could not claim further rights in the property after it 
had been sold and delivered to the wholesaler. This 
test case was passed up to the Supreme Court and 
decided in favor of O'Donnell. It appears then, that 
retailers purchasing goods in this manner may no longer 
be held for infringement if they cut the stipulated prices. 
The decision is distinct from the Dick-Henry decision 
and merely disproves the assumption that a patentee 
may retain the control of the selling price regardless of 
the number of hands through which the article or prod- 
uct passes. Many articles, from dress hooks to talking 
machines, are affected by this decision. It seems likely, 
however, that manufacturers, in some cases, can change 
their selling plans to an agency or other plan to eliminate 
the broker, jobber, or wholesaler, so that this decision 
will not prevent them from maintaining the retail prices 
of their goods. 



132 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

Another custom in general use is to merely rent the 
machines upon payment of a sum which is generally 
sufficient to more than cover the cost of producing the 
machine. A royalty is then charged upon each article 
made, or each operation which the machine makes. The 
title is always retained by the owner and the licensee 
may be further required to agree to use no other machines 
except those made by the owner referred to. The 
owner may further provide and require a contract which 
practically forces the licensee to admit the validity of 
the enumerated patents, to agree not to alter or improve 
the apparatus, to pay the owner for the upkeep of the 
machine, such as repairs and the like, to replace worn or 
broken parts only with parts obtained from the owner, 
to make only a specified kind or class of article, to furnish 
accurate reports of the quantity manufactured or used, 
and not to use any other than the specified machines for 
accomplishing the operations. The licensee may even 
be prevented from terminating the term of the license. 
Failure to comply with the contract gives the owner the 
right to remove the machinery or take it away from the 
licensee. The licensee can thus be made essentially a 
commercial slave of the owner of the patents. 

The foregoing shows practically all of the require- 
ments which may be attached as conditions to the use 
of a patented invention and are not exaggerated. In 
fact the foregoing is essentially the policy pursued by 
such corporations as the shoe machinery trust. Such 
monopoly is bitterly fought though in some cases such 
a fight is of little avail. There is at the present time 
a decided sentiment against such extreme limitations. 

When the patented articles are sold directly to the 
public the operation is less difficult, and the restrictions 
are quite generally adhered to. The public seems to 
have awe and respect for the words, " Licensed only for 



PATENT RIGHTS 133 

use with, etc./' '^ Any other use will constitute infringe- 
ment of our patents, etc.," and similar clauses. It is 
generally arranged so that a mere purchase of the 
article is supposed to bind the user to the specified 
terms. Of course it would never pay the individual to 
fight the matter, nor would it be possible to prosecute 
all in this class of infringers, even if they could be 
reached. 

The examples just outlined are considered abuses of 
our patent system by many people. The question 
arises as to whether it is within the meaning of the law, 
in spite of the fact that experts of the law have repeatedly 
affirmed this very question. As a result of our liberal 
patent system the people are able to enjoy great com- 
forts and conveniences. The people who object to 
patents and the rights which they give the patentee are 
the very ones who seek to enjoy an invention without 
paying for it. It is just as reasonable as seeking food, 
shelter, medical service, or the like without paying for 
the privilege. Do these people ever stop to consider 
all that they owe to inventors? To be sure the real 
inventor often gets but little or none of the real profits 
which accrue from his invention. This is probably the 
only weakness in the foregoing argument. 

The patentee, then, acquires a very elastic and vastly 
important group of exclusive rights by reason of a 
patent, and he should therefore not lightly dispose of 
his rights. In spite of the fact that all of these rights 
are supposed to belong to him, it happens more often 
that others purchase these rights for a comparatively 
small sum and make them the basis of a subsequent 
fortune. Many inventors fail to realize all that a patent 
really means and are unable to avail themselves of the 
full benefit which should accrue from it. In nearly 
every case which has become famous by reason of the 



134 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

immense profits accruing by a proper exploitation of the 
patent, the profits have accrued to skilled promoters 
rather or more than to the inventor. 

To be sure, the inventor is quite liable to overvalue 
his patent, particularly if it is for a mere improvement. 
As pointed out before, the mere fact that an invention 
is patented does not mean that it is valuable or of more 
use than if it had never been patented. Many inven- 
tors are led into believing that any idea which is allowed 
a patent is sure to bring an immediate fortune and learn 
otherwise in short order. It is an expensive education. 
Just how much '' certificate attorneys " with their liter- 
ature are responsible for such conditions is problemat- 
ical. It is understood that the items noted in this 
chapter are applicable to patents having subject matter 
of merit and value, and which are legally strong. Even 
patents with meritorious subject matter cannot be con- 
sidered in this chapter unless they are also legally strong. 
Weak machine-made patents with one or two limited 
claims could not for an instant withstand attacks from 
infringers or others who will often fight to the last ditch 
before giving in to the inevitable.* A more complete 
idea of this matter can be gained by a study of the 
cases which are constantly adjudged and from the 
following points. 

If the patentee demands too much his invention will 
not be taken up, or if taken up it will soon lead to less 
objectionable substitutes. Unless these substitutes can 
be bought up the monopoly cannot last for any time. 
The whole gist of the relations between the patentee 
and the public may be found in the following comment 
taken from an important decision. 

" Within his domain the patentee is czar. The 
people must take the invention on the terms he dictates 
* Damages cannot always be collected even then. 



PATENT RIGHTS 135 

or let it alone for seventeen years. This is a necessity 
from the nature of the grant. Cries of restraint of 
trade and impairment of the freedom of sales are un- 
availing, because for the promotion of the useful arts 
the constitution and the statutes authorize this very 
monopoly." 

This principle is very clear and can only be altered 
by amendments to the constitution or the statutes. 
It is again repeated, that the inventor should not lightly 
dispose of these broad rights. 

Joint Owners. — Joint owners may each independently 
dispose of the rights to a patent to any extent and 
license others to do so, without joint contribution of 
profits, this holding true without regard to the relative 
interests of the joint owners. A special agreement 
may be made between the co-owners to change this 
principle. Such an agreement should be made for the 
protection of all parties concerned, otherwise the part- 
nership may act like an ordinary partnership except 
that the more alert party will very likely take undue 
advantage over the other party or parties. 

A patentee may dispose of his rights in bulk or sever- 
ally or by licenses or restricted grants to others, or he 
may forbid all others from making, using, or selling his 
invention, or he may use it himself exclusively or he 
may neither use it nor allow others to use any of the 
rights.* He may also dispose of only a part of his 
rights if so desired. 

Patents are Property. — A patent is a form of per- 
sonal property and becomes a part of the estate of the 

* It is estimated that only 2 per cent of all German patentees 
work their inventions or allow them to be worked in the United 
States in spite of the fact that they are for the most part assigned 
and valuable. This item should receive attention since the result 
is obvious. 



136 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

patentee upon his death if it has not otherwise been 
assigned. The executors or administrators then obtain 
title to the invention and its sale is subject to the ap- 
proval of the Probate Court like other property. 

The patentee cannot be deprived of his patent rights 
without due process of the law. This due process may 
include only constitutional decrees of courts and does 
not embrace legislative acts by Congress or other Legis- 
latures. 

Regulating Laws. — Patent rights cannot be seized 
and sold under the authority of a writ or other execution 
of the common law. Patents may be reached by a 
creditor's bill in equity, however, and the patent may 
be ordered sold under the direction of the court in de- 
fault of payment of the judgment upon which the bill 
is based. 

The United States as a government or any of the 
officials has no more right to use a patented invention 
without license than has a private citizen and may not 
use it without due compensation to the patentee. 

No state can interfere with the monopoly which a 
patent affords, except that it may make reasonable 
regulations respecting the transfer of patent rights for 
the purpose of preventing its citizens from fraud. It 
may require a certified copy of the letters patent to be 
filed in the office of the county clerk together with proof 
of the authority of the vendor to sell such rights, before 
such rights are sold to one of its citizens in that county. 
A state may further require that a note which is given 
for a patent right shall so show on its face or shall 
otherwise be void. 

A state may also regulate the making, selling, or the 
using of the things covered by the patent. This in- 
cludes all of the regulations, such as police, factory, 
and other laws provide. The things covered by patent 



PATENT RIGHTS 137 

are also liable to the law of common carriers, revenue 
laws, and laws which are applied to other things, such 
as police regulations, etc. 

There are, then, some slight restrictions which tend 
to keep patent rights within bounds. 

Marking Goods Patented. — Every person making 
or selling a patented article is required to stamp or 
brand the word '^ Patented " thereon, together with 
the day and year on which the patent was granted. 
A like notice may be placed on the package containing 
the article or affixed to the article instead of stamping 
or branding it in the article. If neither of these alterna- 
tives is done, the patent is not rendered invalid but if 
the patent is subsequently infringed, no damages can 
be collected unless it is proved that the infringer con- 
tinued the infringement after he had been duly noti- 
fied. The manufacturer can mark a patented article 
" Patented " even after the patent has expired without 
legal liability. There are many articles, so marked, in 
use to-day, which have not in fact been patented since 
a number of years. The false marking of goods with 
the word " Patented " or words of similar import is a 
criminal offense, and is punishable by a fine of not less 
than one hundred dollars together with costs. Any- 
one may bring action in such a case and one-half of the 
penalty accrues to such a person for bringing the suit 
for the same. Articles cannot be marked patented to 
deceive the public without being liable to the foregoing. 
Not a few nonpatented articles become generally under- 
stood as patented without apparently interfering with 
this law, however, by reason of registered trademarks 
which are used in conjunction with such words as, 
" Registered in U. S. Pat. Office". Patented (?) medi- 
cines are one example of this evasion. 

The foregoing remarks are all based on numerous 



138 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

decisions and are well established. It may also inter- 
est some readers to know that 

An attorney has a right to retain possession of letters 
patent until all fees are paid. (16 0. G. 1004. Ex 
parte Bowers.) 



Further Applications of Patents; Restrictions; 
Combines 

A good patent is not limited to any one art or appli- 
cation in some cases and may be a veritable gold mine 
by reason of its application to several arts. The several 
arts may even be noncompeting and the separate rights 
disposed of or licensed for a sum equal to that ordinarily 
obtained for all of the rights. As examples, there are 
the cases of vulcanized rubber, in which the rights to 
the several arts were finely divided and disposed of; 
the application of a principle employed for dental ap- 
paratus to a similar purpose in speed recorders for 
automobiles; and the application of a drying process in- 
tended particularly for use in the manufacture of powder 
to the manufacture of cereals for foods, as well as a 
number of others. 

The patentee may dispose of his three main rights 
severally. Thus a manufacturer may be licensed to 
make the invention and nothing else, with subrestric- 
tions if desired; a second party may be licensed only 
to job the device of the invention with suitable restric- 
tions; and the right to use may be disposed of to the 
consumer with still further restrictions. A triple tribute 
to the patentee may thus be exacted. 

When only a part of the territory of the United States 
is included in an assignment or license, the patentee 
reserves all other rights which have not otherwise been 
disposed of. If the party thus licensed operates in 



PATENT RIGHTS 139 

other territory than that specified he can be sued as an 
infringer. Whenever possible, the greatest profit can 
generally be acquired by the patentee by territorial 
assignment or license of the patent rights. 

The restrictions which may be placed to limit the use 
of an invention are very broad and various. In addi- 
tion to a few cases already mentioned, the patentee 
may place restrictions as to selling and reselling prices, 
the quantity that may be used, the length of time that 
it may be used, the conditions under which it may be 
used, and so on. There are numerous illustrations of 
these points and all are doubtless familiar to the readers. 
We might mention the restrictions specified in the sale 
of phonographs, mimeographs, and various other ma- 
chines. 

Patent rights may also serve as an excuse, if not a 
justification, for various trade combines. Such com- 
binations become legal when the asserted purpose is 
to secure and protect patent rights for the benefit of 
those concerned. By an ingenious system of licenses 
such a combine can be made valid and very effective. 
The agreements can be rigidly enforced, limiting the 
various members to certain territories, output, etc., as 
desired. Types of this use of patent rights are em- 
bodied in the x\utomobile Manufacturers' Association, 
the rubber combine, the Last Makers' Association, and 
several others which are generally well known. Such 
practices are now in disrepute. In the ^'big business" 
legislation which is now engaging the attention of Congress 
it appears likely that all interlocking combinations will be 
designated as illegal. 

Undivided Rights. — It is a peculiar fact that when a 
patent is owned by two or more parties, even if one only 
is the inventor, each party acquires the right to dispose 
of any and all rights independently from the other 



140 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

parties, even if the relative ownership is unbalanced. 
An owner of only one-fifth of the interest in a patent 
may thus acquire far greater profit from the disposal 
of his share than the inventor with a four-fifths share. 
Joint inventors have similar rights in respect to dis- 
posing of their several interests. A limiting contract 
may of course be provided. 

The scope of worthy and protected patent rights 
may thus become enormous and is of great breadth. 
Indeed, the possibilities of patent rights are but little 
realized by the majority of people, including patentees 
themselves. To be sure, if the subject matter is not 
valuable or the patent not protective, few if any of the 
valuable rights of a patent can ever be utilized or en- 
forced for profit. This principle is obvious and may 
be compared to the staking of a claim to a piece of 
valueless land. If such a claim to a few square rods of 
land were staked in an isolated part of a desert, for 
•instance, the staker would certainly have the undis- 
puted right to the land, for no one would disturb him. 
Such a claim would not greatly benefit him or any other 
person, and in this respect it forms a good comparison 
to patents, not a few of which possess an identical value. 

Other Points. Assignments. — It has been held that 
the separate claims of a patent cannot be assigned. 
Partial rights to all of the claims are always implied 
when all rights are not specified. When provisions are 
attached to an assignment, it amounts to a mere license 
and not an assignment. Provisions are generally at- 
tached to protect the inventor or patentee from unwar- 
ranted action, as in the case of undivided assignments. 
It should be provided that the co-owners have relative 
rights which are dependent upon the sanction of the 
other co-owner. Another fallacy should be evident, as 
follows : 



PATENT RIGHTS 141 

Assignments which are made conditional upon the 
payment of money or its equivalent upon its being 
recorded in the Patent Office are in fact not conditional. 
The Patent Office does not investigate to ascertain if the 
conditions have been fulfilled before entering the assign- 
ment. An assignment may, however, be canceled upon 
the written consent of the parties concerned. In case 
of fraudulent agreements in which the inventor or 
patentee is injured, a second assignment can be made 
for the same rights, and remedy may be had in the 
courts. 

Any assignment or contract relating to patents should 
be recorded in the Patent Office without delay. Assign- 
ments are generally delivered at the time that the 
equivalent sum is paid over. 

A patent may be mortgaged like any other property 
in order to secure a loan or other obligation. The 
mortgagee is given an assignment of the rights which is 
recorded in the Patent Office. This gives the right to 
sue infringers and other rights until the patent is again 
redeemed. The redemption of the patent is accomp- 
lished by meeting the obligation as agreed upon, and 
the assignment is rendered null and void. 

Licensee. — A licensee is not an owner of an interest 
in a patent. He cannot therefore sue infringers in his 
own name, or subdivide or transfer his rights. He may, 
however, do the latter if an agreement to that effect is 
made. 

A shop right is a license to make the invention at a 
certain place, and is not transferable, except that a 
partner retains the right to the same in case a partner- 
ship is dissolved and the business continued. 

The foregoing is intended to be suggestive rather 
than exhaustive and will be found to be all that is 
ordinarily needed. 



CHAPTER XII 
DISPOSING OF OR LICENSING PATENT RIGHTS 

"A subject difficult indeed, 
Easy or hard or full of greed." — Author. 

The above is only too true, for the disposal of patent 
rights is difficult. It is a problem which practically 
every inventor must meet and which is either easy or 
hard as the case may be and in which either one or both 
parties to the bargain are very careful to see to their 
full rights and protection, with the secondary object, of 
course, of securing the greatest profit possible, even at 
the expense of the other party. 

The general nature of patent rights and their value 
has been shown. There are five general ways and means 
of disposing of patent rights. These are: 

1. The outright sale of all rights without restriction. 
This includes contracted assignment as well as the sales 
mentioned. 

2. The partial sale of all rights. This includes un- 
divided interests, divisional interests which are re- 
stricted to specified purposes, and territorial divisions 
which are restricted to certain territory. 

3. The unrestricted license to use, make, and sell the 
invention. Such rights are generally partially restricted 
and provide for licensee's regular payment of royalties 
upon an agreed basis. 

4. The restricted license. This includes territorial, 
divided purpose, partial, and other restricted licenses. 

5. Neither complete nor partial sale or license or 
assignment or any use may be made of the invention. 

142 



DISPOSING OF OR LICENSING PATENT RIGHTS 143 

This may be done for a definite purpose or because the 
patent rights are worthless and cannot be disposed of. 

The disposal of the patent rights is a problem which is 
of the greatest importance to an inventor and in most 
cases it is the final step or the fulfillment of the whole 
cycle of steps from the time that the invention was first 
conceived. Call it greed if you so desire, but it cannot be 
denied that the hope for profit is the chief incentive or 
equal incentive (the hope for fame being the other in- 
centive) which supports the majority of inventors and 
prompts them to create and patent inventions. 

To be sure, there are some, — for the most part pessi- 
mists or persons incapable of inventing or appreciating 
the faculty in others, — who argue that it is unscientific 
and unprofessional to patent inventions and that they 
should be given to the public in the same manner that 
great scientific principles and discoveries have been in 
the past, i.e., without exacting compensation other than 
the resulting fame. This may be an ideal plan perhaps, 
but in practice it would not be satisfactory. In proof 
of this it is necessary only to refer to the great squabbles 
and disputes, which have resulted among the very 
scientists and professional persons specified, in the past. 
Not a few of the discoveries have been bitterly protested 
and fought and the disputes over priority have amounted 
to regular professional warfare in some cases. To be 
sure, at rare and infrequent intervals some kind-hearted 
inventor will unselfishly and voluntarily dedicate all 
of his rights to the public. This is highly commendable, 
but have many or any of such dedicated patents ever 
been utilized or become of value to the public? 

Dedication to the Public. — At the present time if 
such an unselfish inventor desires to dedicate his in- 
vention to the public he must do so at his own ex- 
pense, i.e., paying all fees, the cost of development, 



144 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

and other expenses. It may puzzle some people why a 
patent is applied for in such cases and why a mere 
publication would be insufficient. The reason is that 
others might subsequently patent the same invention 
and obtain credit and profit for it. The inventor who 
dedicates the invention to the public voluntarily thus 
receives recognition of priority and, theoretically at 
least, the fame. It has even been proposed that such 
inventors should be privileged and be entitled to this 
kind of patent without the payment of fees. The chief 
drawback to such a plan, of course, is that many un- 
worthy cases and worthless patents would be piled into 
the records and the volume might even reach the point 
where it would interfere with the regular Patent Office 
transactions. The unknowing dedication of parts of 
an invention to the public through ignorance or poor 
judgment in applying for and prosecuting an applica- 
tion for a patent is of course not a recognized dedica- 
tion to the public although it amounts to practically 
the same thing in a large number cases. Not a few 
cases are on record in which valuable rights have been 
unwittingly dedicated to the public in this manner. 

Selling Patent Rights. — But let us consider the actual 
method of selling patent rights. '_To begin with, it should 
be noted that each case is likely to present its own diffi- 
culties and to demand its own treatment. Whatever is 
said in this chapter will not serve to effect a sale of a 
patent if the individual is a poor salesman or the patent 
a poor piece of property to sell. Mere statements can- 
not serve to sell a patent any more than the statements 
in an earlier chapter can serve to make an impossible 
person a real inventor. The degree of success, then, 
depends upon the nature of the subject matter, its 
novelty, the personality of the patentee, the strength of 
the patent, and, above all, its commercial utility and 



DISPOSING OF OR LICENSING PATENT RIGHTS 145 

need. The following is offered merely as good sugges- 
tions. 

It must be admitted that the better the subject matter, 
the easier the patent will be sold. The same general 
principle holds true with respect to the other items 
which will presently receive attention. This does not 
necessarily mean that one invention will become useless 
because of its subject matter, but it does mean that the 
value depends to considerable extent upon the subject 
matter. The subject matter may become valuable by 
reason of its great novelty, utility, essential improve- 
ment over the prior art, the demand for the same, and 
its commercial practicability, or one or all or other 
combinations, or for these and still other reasons. It 
is not necessary to go into the details of these various 
items for they are well established and understood. 
It should be clearly established that a patent with poor 
subject matter or worthless subject matter will be diffi- 
cult to sell if indeed it can be sold at all. This is an 
essential principle and cannot be ovier estimated. In 
short, to be a success, the subject matter must be for a 
step forward and not backward in its art, for a prac- 
ticable, and for a needed invention. 

The degree of the value which is embraced by the 
subject matter itself varies greatly and there does not 
seem to be any set standards. A comparatively simple 
and insignificant invention may bring big results, or 
again more often it may not. Again, revolutionary in- 
ventions (this means real revolutionary inventions) may 
start immense fortunes or be only something for which 
there is no immediate market. The tendency is to 
exaggerate the relatively few big hits when in fact a 
much better idea of the patent situation could be gained 
by reference to the vast bulk of patents, — moderate 
successes and failures well mixed and digested. 



146 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

The Title which the Claims Afford. — Aside from 
good subject matter the most important item is that 
the claims should afford a clear title. The claims to a 
patent of value must protect the subject matter. This 
item is of the utmost importance and will be still further 
discussed in the chapter on infringements. The modern 
business man has some or even a good idea of the requi- 
sites of a valuable patent and it is useless to try to fool 
him. He can tell at a glance whether or not the subject 
matter is good and whether or not the claims afford a 
clear title. Or, if he does not trust to his own judg- 
ment, he is sure to employ an attorney to examine into 
the validity and scope of the patent. In fact, he would 
be unwise if he did not do this. Regarding the com- 
posite business man to whom the patent is to be 
offered as a sound and experienced individual it is 
unreasonable to expect that he will be overawed by 
a patent and will accept the same without rigid exam- 
ination. He has learned from bitter experience and 
knows that the patent is of little or no use without 
good subject matter and good protection. He is quick 
to realize the defects in a patent and may even appro- 
priate the essential principles by making some minor 
changes without paying one cent of tribute to the 
owner of the weak patent. Why pay for what he may 
have gratis? 

Too many inventors arrive at this stage only to find 
that their patents are valueless and cannot be sold at 
any price. The experiences of others should prove an 
object lesson to every reader. Nor is the inventor the 
only one who is misled. Quite often an inexperienced 
investor is misled and loses a part or all of his worldly 
goods in aiding in the exploitation of a hopeless case. 
The author is aware of several cases in which such 
persons have deliberately put themselves into virtual 



DISPOSING OF OR LICENSING PATENT RIGHTS 147 

bankruptcy on account of a worthless patent in the ex- 
pectation of getting rich over night. 

Examination into the Scope and Validity. — Past ex- 
periences have resulted in an almost universal caution 
on the part of wise parties and a patent is seldom pur- 
chased or rented until its scope and validity have been 
investigated. This may seem a superfluous step to the 
layman but it is very necessary. No sensible party 
wishes to purchase a patent which may only be an in- 
fringement on existing patents. How else is he to know 
this fact for a certainty? Then too he wishes insurance 
against possible escapement from the claims of the patent 
and against possible infringement. 

As has already been pointed out, the mere grant of a 
patent does not insure the patentee in this manner. 
While it is puzzling, it is nevertheless true that a patent 
may be granted in spite of the fact that it is an infringe- 
ment of a prior patent, that it may not cover or protect 
the invention, that it may allow of avoidance and suc- 
cessful infringement, and so on. The only possible man- 
ner in which scope and validity may be insured is by 
a thorough after examination by experienced lawyers. 
Such an examination means practically a reexamina- 
tion into the records with great care and regard to the 
matter contained in the claims. Such an examination 
is generally expensive and the exact amount depends 
largely upon the nature of the case. It is as essential 
in view of the present status of patents as is a search 
of titles before 'purchase of real estate. Such a search 
may merely serve to substantiate a patent or again it 
may show it to be void. In some cases it may be found 
that there are one or more other patents which are suffi- 
ciently broad to include it. Often these prior patents 
may prove to be undeveloped or inoperative and may 
be purchased for a relatively small sum, making an 
increased protection possible. 



148 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

A Sales Folly. — It seems necessary at this time to 
mention the folly of trusting to attorneys who claim 
that they sell their clients patents free or for a percentage, 
to the free advertising which some attornej^s offer as an 
inducement to engage their services, to concerns who 
call themselves fiduciary corporations and the like, and 
to similar schemes. 

In the first place it is beyond reason to believe that an 
attorney concern can sell every patent which comes their 
way in spite of the fact that they make the same offers 
to each client. In fact it is doubtful if even a few of 
any cases are thus disposed of. The so-called free adver- 
tising which some attorney concerns hold out must also 
be classed as a folly. This wonderful free publicity 
generally consists of a few words in tiny type sand- 
wiched in with from fifteen to thirty-five or more simi- 
lar announcements, all put into the space of a few inches 
in some manufacturer's journal or attorney's house 
organ, or the classified columns of a daily paper. Such 
free service costs the concern a few cents and is likely to 
be worth still less to the client. If an advertisement is 
to aid in the sale of a patent at all, it should give a 
prospective purchaser some idea of what it is, what its 
advantages are, and so on. This being true, who can 
fail to see the true purpose of such offers? 

Whether or not it is proper for attorneys to sell 
patents upon a commission basis is a point open to 
discussion. Certain it is, that this feature as practiced 
by some is far from proper. The same may be said 
with regard to the lists of manufacturers offered by 
some concerns. What chance has an inventor when 
hundreds of other inventors have been using and reus- 
ing the same list to death? Is it not probable that the 
manufacturers on the list become wearied by repeated 
solicitation? 



DISPOSING OF OR LICENSING PATENT RIGHTS 149 

Agency Schemes. — But the greatest folly is perhaps 
embraced in the various selling agency schemes. These 
concerns operate under various names and plans but 
the general scheme is the same. The prospect is ap- 
proached as soon as his address has been obtained and is 
told how wonderful and valuable his invention is, how 
there is a big manufacturer ready to pay a large sum for 
rights to the invention, and similar flattering and allur- 
ing statements, generally concluding with some kind of 
a request for a sum to further the interests of the pros- 
pect, to make an after examination to ascertain valid- 
ity and scope (which is apt to be fraudulently conducted), 
to print copies of the patent for distribution to manu- 
facturers, to furnish cuts to illustrate the invention and 
so on. The sum and total of the effect of such schemes 
is to separate the inventor from his money without 
rendering him any valuable services in return. The 
exact nature of the scheme is immaterial since one and 
all have a similar result in view. The author has 
examined some of these so-called manufacturer's lists 
and patent-selling journals. In nearly every case the 
manufacturer received it in the mail without asking for 
the same and if the office boy was not sufficiently inter- 
ested it very likely found its way into the waste basket 
or waste paper press. As an example, one of these lists 
contained the names of several companies obtained at 
random from such a record as Bradstreet's and upon in- 
vestigation it was found that few of these manufacturers, 
whom it was said were ready and anxious to purchase 
patents, were prepared or even desired to so purchase, 
some of the concerns being in fact unprepared to even 
consider any kind of patent purchase. Not a few of 
these schemes have been discovered and stopped by the 
postal authorities but some continue to operate at the 
present time. Some of the schemes are particularly 



150 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

clever and net the operators many thousands. Any 
readers who receive such offers would do well to forward 
them to the Post Office department with a statement 
of the matter. To be sure, in some rare cases alert 
manufacturers may make direct offers to the inventor 
as soon as their attorneys have reported the matter 
and such cases do not come under this head. It is 
very seldom that the manufacturer hunts for the inventor 
in this manner and it is not advisable to wait in hope 
of being favored with such attention. 

Promotion Plans. — Tricky promoters are also to be 
regarded askance. Their general plan is to supply 
capital through well-known promotion plans and stock 
selling schemes and to take some 30 per cent as their 
share for their services. The fallacy of the plan should 
be evident and at about the time that the whole scheme 
is about to fail the promoters are generally noticeable 
for there unknown whereabouts and the inventor must 
meet the responsibility alone. Some of these get-rich- 
quick schemes have taken in leading inventors and 
netted the promoters thousands of dollars. These cases 
are doubtless well known to all of the readers and 
further comment seems unnecessary. Such schemes 
have even been successfully^ conducted upon no sounder 
basis than patents applied for and illustrate the general 
ignorance of patents on the part of those who invest. 
In fact one result from experience with such schemes is 
that the wary investor has come to regard even meritori- 
ous patent projects with suspicion. This is unfortunate 
for all concerned, for thousands of dollars foolishly 
invested in impossible schemes might much better be 
used to develop meritorious patents which go begging 
for want of capital. 

Whenever possible it is undoubtedly the best plan to 
deal with persons who are personally known for their 



DISPOSING OF OR LICENSING PATENT RIGHTS 151 

responsibility and integrity. Whatever plan is pur- 
sued, the highest type of salesmanship is necessary. 

Partial or Total Assignment Before Issue of Patent. — 
It is very desirable in many cases to dispose of part or 
the entire interests of a patent before it is applied for 
or while it is in application. This is perhaps the most 
difficult branch of the tasks of an inventor and is full 
of pitfalls. Duplicate correspondence should always be 
preserved in such cases. It should be remembered that 
the prospective buyer will not pay for what he may take 
gratis. In case a partial assignment or total assignment 
is made for a specified sum or salary before the patent is 
applied for, both parties should take care to avoid mis- 
understandings. It is a general practice at the present 
time to assign a part interest in a patent before it is 
applied for in order to secure the funds necessary for 
development, fees, and the like. The investor who se- 
cures an interest in a meritorious invention for a com- 
paratively small sum is indeed fortunate. Employees 
are often forced to assign their patents to the employer 
by a contract which is signed at the time of entering 
into the position, and the courts have held that such a 
contract can be rigidly enforced even if no other com- 
pensation other than an ordinary salary is provided for. 
Inventors should think twice before selling and signing 
away all rights to any inventions which they may ever 
make either while employed or afterwards. To show 
the risks taken in disclosing an invention to a party or 
corporation before it is protected, or even afterwards, 
the following paragraphs from the Business magazine 
are quoted. 

"Competition threatens every business. Generally unexpected, 
it makes severe inroads into a concern's profits before a combative 
plan can be devised. Many are the cases on record where a skillful 
competitor following a carefully planned campaign has captured 



152 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

trade held by a concern lulled to self-complacency by easy sales 
and large profits. 

The military maxim of world powers, "In time of peace pre- 
pare for war," can well be followed by the powers in the world of 
industry. One of the greatest specialty concerns in the world owes 
its dominance of the market to its anticipation of competition. In 
the words of one of its directors: "Competition is the logical out- 
come of success in any branch of business. The moment a concern 
demonstrates that its proposition is sound, it becomes the target 
for competitors' shots. The imitator is always present who either 
believes that he can produce the same goods at less cost, or who is 
content to take smaller profit than the concern first in the field." 

From its inception the concern in question has anticipated com- 
petition. One of its first moves was to maintain a staff of skilled 
inventors whose sole duty was to originate improvements in the 
product. The head of the concern maintains that if, with the inti- 
mate knowledge of the product possessed by his company and its 
inventors, they cannot keep ahead of competitors, then they deserve 
to suffer loss. 

A skilled patent attorney was installed at the factory. Two 
duties were his: first, to protect the concern in its patent applica- 
tions-; second, to watch government reports of patents obtained 
by outsiders on mechanism of the nature of that produced by his 
employers. The moment an outside apphcation is made for a 
patent on a mechanism relating to the company's product, the 
attorney concentrates his whole effort on the case. If on investi- 
gation the patent be found valueless, complete data is gathered and 
filed and the case dropped. But should a patent show promise or 
cover some new mechanical principle, two courses are followed: 
first, a thorough investigation is made to see if it infringes in any 
way upon patents held by the company; second, the company's 
staff of inventors is instructed to concentrate effort upon finding a 
way to improve on the outsider's patent. Should this prove im- 
possible, an effort is made to secure control of the patent. By thus 
anticipating competition the concern can either stifle it at the out- 
set, or, when this proves impossible, lay advance plans to combat 
it when it becomes a reaUty. 

Cost of production is a vital element in dealing with competition. 
Improved processes of manufacture often enable a competitor to 
undersell, thus giving him dominance of an existing trade labori- 
ously built up by other concerns. In almost every line of trade 
outsiders are engaged in perfecting machinery that will cut the cost 



DISPOSING OF OR LICENSING PATENT RIGHTS 153 

of production. By immediately adopting such machinery a com- 
petitive concern gains an advantage over the conservative concern 
whose trade it covets, 

A concern in the Middle West, notably free from competition, 
searches Patent Office reports for indication of the perfecting of im- 
proved machinery in its fine. The inventor is immediately ap- 
proached with a hberal proposition, either to sell his patent outright 
or to give the concern first call on his invention. DiUgence in thus 
forestalling competition has enabled this concern always to keep 
ahead of competitors." 

The foregoing also points out other important mat- 
ters. The outside inventor must '^ have the goods," if 
he is to succeed at the present time. 

Selling Plans; Personal Solicitation; Precautions 

If it is desirable to dispose of a patent to some manu- 
facturer it is highly important that the right manufac- 
turer be approached in the right manner with something 
worth selling. Classified lists of manufacturers can be 
obtained or can be purchased from any of the many 
companies specializing in furnishing reliable lists. It 
is always advisable to ascertain the commercial stand- 
ing of the prospective purchaser. If the manufacturer 
selected, must be reached by correspondence, such cor- 
respondence must be clearly and properly conducted. 
Remember, the purchaser wants to know everything 
possible about your invention in the most concise man- 
ner possible. He wants to know how it works, how 
much it costs to make, if it is patented, what protection 
the patent affords, and so on. It is necessary to prove 
to him that it is to his advantage to purchase the patent 
rights offered. Photographs, drawings, and models, sev- 
erally or jointly, are valuable to further the transactions 
but none should ordinarily be sent until the possible 
interest of the purchaser has been ascertained by polite 
inquiry. It is merely a waste of time and money to 



154 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

pester an impossible prospect Avith your plans. The 
merits of the invention should always be pointed out 
and if there are prior patents it is just as well to mention 
them and the advantages of the patent over the prior 
art, because they are sure to be discovered later under 
less favorable conditions. Circulars can be used, but 
personal letters are much to be preferred. Cheap cir- 
culars are of but little value if any. 

It is not wise to make the mistake of asking a price 
until such information has been asked for or until the 
prospective purchaser has signified his desire to acquire 
the patent rights. In the first communications a time 
limit should generally be fixed to insure against un- 
necessary delay. It is a mistake to make the same 
offer to more than one party at the same time in most 
cases. Never indulge in rudeness in any of the corre- 
spondence. It may even be well to secure the services 
of a trusted and skilled friend to conduct the negotia- 
tions for you. If the patent is valuable, protected, and 
for subject matter essential to the purchaser, it is only 
a matter of time until the matter is finally settled. It 
is always much better to ask for an offer than to state 
a certain price, since it gives the purchaser and the seller, 
particularly the latter, due advantages. 

Without doubt the best method of selling patent 
rights is to go to see the prospect personally. If you 
have not the necessary confidence in your ability to 
present your viewpoint, nothing which can be suggested 
herein can aid you. A study of salesmanship by means 
of a good text on the subject is of course advisable. 
Otherwise, the best policy is to have some skilled friend 
do the selling for you. The average purchaser wants to 
be fully shown and it is always advisable to make an 
actual demonstration whenever possible. In fact, patent 
selling is a straightforward business procedure and sue- 



DISPOSING OF OR LICENSING PATENT RIGHTS 155 

cess is inevitable when the patent affords a clear title 
to meritorious subject matter. 

Aside from an outright sale of all rights, the various 
rights may be divided and sold separately or licensed in 
whole or part. Such procedure is often very advanta- 
geous but is apt to be full of pitfalls. No contracts 
should ever be signed without trusted legal advice. The 
cases in which inventors have been fooled are numerous 
and should serve as object lessons to others. In fact, it 
is also advisable to get dependable advice as to the best 
method of disposing of patent rights. One case may 
demand a different treatment than another and it is 
unwise to proceed in ignorance of the possibilities. For 
instance, a patent for an agricultural device would very 
likely net considerably more when disposed of by terri- 
tories, such as states, counties, and districts than in 
the whole, and it is quite likely that a limited right will 
net as much as a total right. 

The Scope of Shop Rights. — A shop right is in the 
nature of a license to manufacture the device of the 
patent in a specified factory. Unless the right is re- 
stricted by royalties and as to total production, such a 
right is open to great abuse and the shop right may 
grow to such proportions as to exceed the total remain- 
ing rights other than the shop right. Limitations are 
desirable in order to protect the sales under other rights. 
Shop rights should be drawn up with trusted legal 
advice. (See also Chapter X, Employer and Employee.) 

Concerning Royalties. — A royalty is in the nature 
of a tax which a licensee pays for the use of a patent 
right or rights. The exact basis and amount of the tax 
as well as the method of collecting it varies with nearly 
every case. Generally a certain percentage or amount is 
agreed upon and is governed by the rate of production. 
Pitfalls to consider are, (1) to avoid giving the manufac- 



156 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

turer the right to make as many or as few as he desires 
since his desire may be none and there will be no royal- 
ties; (2) to provide for forfeiture of the license so that 
the manufacturer cannot avoid paying royalties or upon 
nonpayment of a fixed royalty which is the minimum 
and which must be paid whether the patent right is 
used or not. The patentee should also retain the right 
to terminate a license upon poor faith on the part of 
the manufacturer, should provide for a true accounting 
of the exact number of articles manufactured or sold, 
and should provide for the right to examine the manu- 
facturer's books upon unsatisfactory statements which 
may be given to him. Never sign a contract of any 
kind without having it examined by competent lawyers 
since such contracts are apt to be full of pitfalls and 
shrewd provisions which are against your interests. Both 
a cash consideration and a royalty can often be obtained. 

It is perhaps well to caution that if the patentee be- 
comes too unreasonable, he will find himself without a 
second party to his projected transaction. When the in- 
vention covered by the patent is actually valuable, royal- 
ties are a very desirable form of remuneration and are 
very equitable to all concerned. They protect the manu- 
facturer against valueless or void patents and the patentee 
against too little compensation. Indeed the manufac- 
turer may require the patentee to guarantee him against 
infringement suits and other complications. 

All agreements with respect to patent rights should 
be put down in writing and duplicate copies should be 
preserved. Oral agreements are unsatisfactory and are 
very difficult to prove in case of disagreements. All 
such contracts and assignments should be recorded in 
the Patent Office. Once an agreement or assignment 
is made it can seldom be retracted, but in some cases, 
recourse may be had to the courts in case of undue injury. 



DISPOSING OF OR LICENSING PATENT RIGHTS 157 

The Inventor as His Own Manufacturer 

Many successful inventors are their own manufacturers; 
they market their own inventions. It is generally con- 
ceded that the most profit can be derived in this manner 
provided that the inventor possesses the necessary capital 
and business ability. 

Patents as an Investment. — The possibilities in 
patents to an investor are enormous. There are nu- 
merous cases in which the increment on a patent far 
exceeds any increment possible in real estate or stock 
values. When it is further considered that there are 
at the present time hundreds of meritorious inventions 
just needing a little capital and promotion for success, 
it is surprising that more investors do not avail them- 
selves of the opportunity. 

Shelved or Buried Patents. Inventor's Staffs. — In 
spite of repeated denials, it is a fact that there are patents 
which are purchased and then never developed. Possi- 
bly the only part of such methods which are open to 
attack are those which avoid fair competition and those 
which prevent the public from the use of valuable im- 
provements. This policy is undoubtedly pursued by 
some of the largest corporations. For the most part, 
however, a patent is not purchased unless it is valuable 
and can be used to advantage. It is argued that the 
coming of professional staffs of inventors into com- 
mercial life is intended to stampede and discourage 
individual effort. The facts in the case are that no one 
inventor or groups of inventors can invent everything, 
no matter how much ability and capital they may have. 
In spite of their inventor's staffs, corporations purchase 
a number of patents from outsiders each month. The 
proportion of such patents which are never developed 
is of course problematical, but the fact remains that an 



158 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

outside inventor can secure favorable terms from anyone 
if his invention is really meritorious and well protected. 
In fact, there seems to be no reason why an inventor 
cannot provide against nonuse of his patent by a con- 
tract to that effect when the invention is sold. There 
is no such condition as can force an inventor to sell to 
any one concern since modern competition gives him 
several alternatives. In fact, the competition in some 
lines of business has been a great aid to inventors and 
in a few instances, the competing concerns vie with each 
other in the attempt to secure the patents for improve- 
ments in their line. 

The Government as a Purchaser. — The Government 
stands ready to purchase or otherwise acquire rights to 
inventions which are of real merit and of real use to any 
department of the varied services. The general pro- 
cedure in all cases of this kind is to call the attention of 
an interested bureau or department to the invention. 
The inventor may even do this before the patent is 
applied for with a reasonable amount of safety and in 
many cases he will receive expert advice as to the prac- 
ticability of the idea. The law particularly provides 
that patent applications aided by a department of the 
Government in this manner, receive preferred atten- 
tion in the Patent Office. 

Exploitation by Companies and Corporations. — The 
patentee can often best further his interests by forming 
a corporation to develop and manufacture his invention. 
The usual method is to secure a majority share of the 
stock and sell the remainder to others. A corporation 
relieves the incorporators from personal responsibility 
and by a popular stock-selling campaign funds not 
otherwise obtainable can be raised. This method should 
never be adopted unless the invention has actual merit 
since the company will otherwise fail sooner or later. 



DISPOSING OF OR LICENSING PATENT RIGHTS 159 

Information relative to the formation of a corporation 
cannot be given in this book and the reader is referred 
to books on the subject and particularly to good legal 
advice. 

It is perhaps well to mention that some inventors are 
practically forced to accept stock as a part or total 
payment for a patent. Although this stock may be 
sold later, it is always desirable to investigate into its 
value before accepting such a proposition. 

Noteworthy Points. — Before selling a patent, see 
that it works and is something worth selling. Do not 
neglect details. They are the important part of a suc- 
cessful invention. Know your invention thoroughly and 
be able to tell others what you know. 

Do not depend upon the sense of the purchaser to understand 
anything. He may be very dense and must see everything as clear 
as glass. Poor drawings, crude models, and the like will not help 
matters any. 

Do not exaggerate. Your invention will not need this question- 
able support if it is worth selling. Do not be too modest either. 
Point out all of the merits and show how the defects are overcome. 
Take your own time. Do not act as if you were in a great hurry 
to sell. Your impatience may serve as an excuse for "squeezing." 
Your purchaser will not pay more than he thinks he may possibly 
hold you for. 

Show the purchaser your viewpoint. Give him something 
tangible to work on. Give him figures. Point out the demand. 
Overcome his objections. Be sure that you are right and then per- 
sist. 

Prove that you have a clear title and a right to sell your patent. 

Oral agreements and contracts are not businessUke and may be 
hard to prove and enforce. Written agreements in duplicate or 
triplicate are preferable to printed forms. 

Do not depend on an advertisement in a paper devoted to all 
kinds of patents to sell your invention. A purchaser is not likely 
to read or even see yours in the mixture, much less to consider it 
favorably. 

The purchaser prefers to deal direct with the seller and not 
through an agent. When an agent is employed be sure that he is 



160 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

reliable, that the agreements are clear, and establish a time limit 
for the sale as well as a minimum selling price. Arrange for the 

pajTQent of the commission at the time the transfer is made. 

Selling partial or total rights before apphdng for the 
patent should be xevy carefully carried out. Remember 
that 3^ou practically give away j^our chief rights when 
you assign an undivided interest. Protect yourself with 
protective clauses. These may be: 

That co-owners must agree and concur in granting rights or 
licenses. 

That co-owners forfeit the right to independent action relative 
to the patent rights. 

That open books be kept and an equitable division of profits be 
made. 

Remember that territorial grants take considerable time. It is 
advisable to sell the most important territory first for this reason. 
Territorial sales have been abused in the past and unless you have 
something meritorious this method will be useless. 

An outright sale is apt to be the most desirable in many cases. 
The inventor is reheved from the ups and downs of commercial 
activity and possible failure. Remember, an inventor's chief object 
should be to invent. Sell or Hcense your patent to rehable parties. 
Stipulate that a good reputation should be maintained and that 
care should be taken to maintain the invention in good favor. The 
potential value of good will is enormous and essential to a success- 
ful patent. 

Do not expect a million from every idea. The statements of 
scheme attorneys are more fiction than fact. Hold out for a reason- 
able sum but do not hold out too long. 

Fraudulent sales are to be condemned. This term embraces 
patent rights sold under false pretenses, when the patent is inoper- 
ative or valueless and this is known to the seller, and similar cases. 
They can be set aside upon proof and may lead to serious conse- 
quences in many cases. 

The purchaser should require statement that no other license, 
shop right, or assignment has been made. 

Experienced readers do not need to read the foregoing, 
they know. 



DISPOSING OF OR LICENSING PATENT RIGHTS 161 

What the Manufacturer Wants to Know 

The prospective manufacturer of a patented invention 
wants to know if the invention is vahd, if the claims are 
strong or weak, and if the invention is infringing prior 
patents. 

He wants to know if the device will operate practically, 
whether it will cost more or less than products of a similar 
nature, and if he can sell it for more or less than compet- 
ing products. 

Moreover he must know whether or not he has suffi- 
cient capital to handle the proposition, the development 
expense, the tools and shop equipment, the raw materials, 
the advertising and selling expense, the trade and overhead 
costs, and a sufficient margin for a profit. He wants to 
know the state of the prior art, the success of the nearest 
competing devices, the probable territory and seasons for 
sales, the production costs and the sales costs. 

The inventor obviously cannot and is not expected to 
supply all of this information, nor does a weakness in 
some of the points necessarily mean failure. With either 
an inoperative device, an invalid patent or total lack of 
capital facilities, however, the outlook gets very close to 
the inevitable state of failure. 



CHAPTER XIII 
ABOUT INFRINGEMENTS 

Every patent is open to infringement, infringement 
of the worst kind in some cases. Indeed, patentees 
who have valuable noninfringed patents are fortunate. 
There is a rank tendency at the present time (as in the 
past) to deliberately disregard patent rights, or to regard 
them only after protracted suits. Just how much the 
excessive demands of a few patentees or their assigns 
have contributed to this state of affairs, or how much 
the past successes of infringers has encouraged it, is 
difficult to ascertain. The matter of infringement and 
the costly remedy which is possible under the present 
statutes are a burden and injustice to all honest inven- 
tors. The infringer can hazard the patentee throughout 
the entire life of the patent by drawn-out suits or dupli- 
cation of suits. The chances for a poor inventor or one 
of moderate means are so slight as to be negligible. A 
moneyed opponent can fight the matter indefinitely. 
If the patentee wins in one court, the whole process must 
be gone over in another circuit. It may even go the 
rounds of the entire nine judicial circuits. The patentee 
may fight for his rights in one circuit and win and then 
be forced to go through the same process in another 
circuit and lose. The delays and expense involved are 
enormous and have utterly ruined some patentees. The 
delays and unnecessary testimony taken are equal to 
or in excess of those already outlined under '' Inter- 
ferences." The whole subject is quite forcefully stated 
in the following abridgment from a paper on " Pre- 
liminary Injunctions in Patent Cases," by Judge Hill, 

162 



ABOUT INFRINGEMENTS 163 

which was published some years ago. The conditions 
are no better at the present time. 

This neglect of the Federal courts to give due weight, on motion 
for preliminary injunction, to the almost conclusive presumption of 
vahdity which inheres in American patents from the moment of 
their issue, has inflicted and is inflicting an injury to our patent 
system and to the owners of patent property, which it is difficult 
to overestimate. 

... If infringements begin early enough there can then be no 
period of "exclusive possession" or "acquiescence," and the paten- 
tee is obhged to wait until the final decree on the merits of the case, 
and then await the result of an appeal before he can receive any 
reUef. Experience has shown that if the defendant be rich, and 
disposed to make a stubborn fight, he can delay the final hearing, 
and the hearing on appeal, from five to ten years, and in some cases 
almost or quite to the end of the term of the patent. Meanwhile, 
he is using the invention, and, perhaps, making a fortune out of it; 
and his success in pirating the patentee's property and avoiding 
punishment induces other infringers to enter the field, deters capi- 
taUsts from coming to the aid of the patentee, and destroys the 
market value of the patent. I have encountered a case, in my own 
practice, where my chent, who had made and patented one of the 
most valuable inventions of modern times, was obliged to spend the en- 
tire term of his patent in weariness and expensive Htigation. Just as 
the patent was expiring the courts decided that it was broadly vahd, 
but it was then too late to be of any substantial benefit to the 
patentee. He had exhausted his financial resources in the long 
struggle; had been obliged to witness infringers making milHons out 
of his invention, while capitalists dechned to embark in his enter- 
prise by reason of the infringements and of the want of protection; 
had seen even the Government itself profiting from it to the extent 
of about ten millions of dollars, through its infringing contractors, 
while its courts were refusing protection, and had been all the while 
unable to put his invention into use for his own benefit, because, 
under the conditions existing, capitahsts dechned to furnish the 
means necessary for that purpose. To him the Constitution and 
the patent statutes passed in pursuance thereof were more than 
"hollow mockery" — they had actually enticed him to his ruin, by 
holding out the promise of protection, which the courts, for seven- 
teen years, refused to perform. Under the practice by which that 
was done, every inventor who makes a valuable invention or dis- 



164 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

covery that requires a large capital to operate it, is liable to the fate 
of my unfortunate client; and the greater the money-making ca- 
pacity of the invention, the greater the temptation to infringe, and 
the more stubbornly will the infringer contest, while his large profits 
enable him to protract the litigation almost indefinitely at the sole 
expense and risk of the patentee, for it is out of his property that 
all the expenses on both sides are paid. The rigid technical rules 
governing accountings in patent cases practically prohibit the recov- 
ery of profits or damages, and the infringer is left to enjoy his ill- 
gotten gains. 

The time thus lost to the patentee is the most valuable portion 
of his term, when usually he is poor and needs protection to enable 
him to establish his business and secure a market, or to enable him 
to dispose of his patent for an adequate consideration. It is then 
that infringement is most disastrous to him, for it impairs pubUc 
confidence in his rights, prevents capital from investing under them, 
encourages others to infringe, and by unscrupulous and ruinous 
competition destroys the possibihty of deriving profits from his 
patents. In fact I have known many cases where through the in- 
action of the courts the patent has been of vastly greater protection 
to the infringer than to the patentee. 

To appreciate the gross injustice and iUegahty of the present 
practice, look at a few simple and indisputable facts : The Constitu- 
tion gives Congress only one authority in the premises, namely, the 
authority to "secure" to the inventor "the exclusive right" to his 
invention or discovery "for limited times," leaving it to that body 
to fix the hmit. Congress (Rev. Stat., sec. 4884) has fixed the limit 
at seventeen years, and has declared the right "exclusive" for that 
period, and (sec. 4921) it has given the Federal courts power to 
grant injunctions "to prevent the violation of any right secured by 
patent. " By the plain language both of the statutes and the Consti- 
tution the right is to be secured to the inventor, is to be exclusive, 
and is to run, not for a portion of the period limited, but for the 
whole of it, and the purpose of the entire provision is "to promote 
the progress of" the "useful arts." By the practice of the courts, 
however, the right is not secured to the inventor, is not exclusive, 
does not run for the period limited, and the effect is not to promote, 
but to retard the progress of the useful arts. The courts, conceding 
themselves to be destitute of authority to lengthen the term of the 
patent, assume the authority to shorten it to any extent they may 
please by simply refusing to enforce the right until years have elapsed 
after the beginning of the term. . . . 



ABOUT INFRINGEMENTS 165 

New Federal Equity Rules of February, 19 13 

These rules aim to reduce expense of patent litigation 
and to facilitate the administration of justice. Note- 
worthy points are: 

1. The defendant must answer the complainant's bill 
within twenty days after service of subpoena, instead 
of 50 days, months or even a year or more as in the 
past. 

2. Testimony is taken in open court instead of all 
over the country, experts instead of giving testimony 
to notaries are now required to submit briefs to the 
Courts, and evidence need not be printed; thus saving 
months of time and hundreds of dollars over previous 
practice. 

3. If complainant receives a favorable decision, a per- 
petual injunction is issued and the rules provide for a 
''master" (an attorney so named) with sufficient power 
to facihtate an accounting. 

4. In appealing to the Circuit Court the defendant 
must prepare a simple condensed record of the evi- 
dence. 

Attempts to Avoid Infringement. — Infringement can- 
not be avoided by a mere variation of form or size, the 
use of equivalent structures, substitution of materials, 
or excessive additions. A studied attempt to avoid the 
literal meaning of a claim without making improvements 
or changes of importance is generally conceded as an 
infringement. The omission of a minor part does not 
avoid infringement and an important or essential ele- 
ment must be dispensed with. The whole question of 
infringement hinges upon the claims and unless these 
are strong the infringer has a distinct advantage. 

Conditions for Infringement. — It is not necessary 
that a patented invention be actually used or made or 



166 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

sold without the patentee's consent. A mere mtention 
to do so is infringement. 

The use of a patent right after the license has been 
forfeited is infringement. 

The owner of a territorial grant becomes an infringer 
by contracting to deliver the patented goods in territory 
which is reserved for another. Goods may be disposed 
of in the same manner as unpatented goods in the ordi- 
nary course of trade, however. The owner cannot be 
restrained from advertising and selling the goods within 
his territory even if it is a class of goods made outside 
of the specified territory. In such a case the purchaser 
receives an unrestricted ownership. 

A co-owner becomes an infringer if he uses an in- 
fringing device and is liable according to his relative 
share in the infringed patent. 

Those who may sue for infringement are: 
The patentee. 
A sole assignee. 

The owner of an exclusive right, within his terri- 
tory. 
Executors. 
Administrators. 

A patentee must be joined by his assignee of an 
undivided interest in suing for infringement. If the 
infringement occurs in the territory of an undivided 
interest owner, he must join in the action of his grantor. 

A licensee can only sue in the name of the owner of 
the patent, except in a case in which the owner infringes 
the rights of the licensee. 

Infringement cases are under the jurisdiction of the 
U. S. Circuit Courts and may be appealed. 

Notice. — It is necessary to prove that the infringer 
was notified of a patent before damages can be had. 
This notice may be a polite warning together with an 



ABOUT INFRINGEMENTS 167 

explanation of the patentee's rights and a declaration 
that the infringer must stop or be sued. Sometimes an 
advertisement is used as in the case below: 



DETECTORS 

T3ERIK0N, Silicon and all other mineral and solid 
rectifier detectors are covered by patents owned 
by this Company, and all infringements will be prose- 
cuted to the full extent of the Law, including makers, 
users and sellers of such detectors, or supply and repair 
parts thereof. 



Wireless Specialty Apparatus Company 
126 State Street, Boston. Mass. 



No complaints should be entered until success is 
reasonably assured. A delay in bringing suit indicates 
negligence and poor faith. A suit can sometimes be 
avoided by having all the patents concerned thoroughly 
examined by able counsel and an agreement can often 
be arranged. 

A mere declaration that no infringement was intended 
is no excuse. 

In order to secure damages it is required that the 
patented article has been duly marked patented. There 
is a general practice at the present time to merely mark 
an article " Patented/' without giving any exact de- 
scription or dates of the patents relied upon. The idea 
is to avoid giving the possible infringers an idea of just 
what they may comfortably avoid. On the other hand, 
some concerns take elaborate precautions to warn in- 
fringers. Full titles and dates are often given and some 
even offer to send copies of all patents concerned to all 
who contemplate infringements. 



168 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

Avoidance of Infringement. — Infringement may be 
avoided by reason of the fact that the patentee's claims 
may be closely limited by the prior art. Thus, when a 
claim includes matter in the prior art as well as the in- 
fringing device it is void since its validity would mean 
that the claim was infringed by the prior art at the 
same time. 

An improvement which avoids the principles of the 
main. patent is no infringement but if it embodies them 
it is. 

It is no infringement to use a less number of parts, even 
if only one out of six is omitted. This again illustrates 
the value of a strong claim. When the patent definitely 
states that the invention consists of six parts, the pat- 
entee cannot say that it embraces a less number. On 
the other hand, if there are really six parts and the 
claim only states five of them, the courts will generally 
read the missing part into the claim. 

A change in form or shape may avoid infringement when 
the patent is restricted to a particular form or shape. 

Infringement. — Whenever any patent rights are 
usurped by a person not having title or license to make, 
use, or sell the invention, infringement is obvious. 

Whenever any partial rights are usurped without per- 
mission, infringement is also obvious. 

A process is infringed regardless of changes in the 
apparatus used in carrying it out. Infringement of a 
process constitutes using the equivalent steps of the 
patented process. 

Repairs on a patented machine or the like become 
an infringement, when the identity of the machine is 
changed. The replacement of even a single patented 
part has been held to be an infringing action. These 
items insure that profits from the patent will not be 
hindered by competition from rebuilt machines. 



ABOUT INFRINGEMENTS 169 

The infringement of any of the rights covered by a 
single claim is sufficient to make the patent infringed. 

It is an infringement to make a patented article in the 
United States which is sold only in a foreign country, 
even if the article is not patented in the foreign country. 

It is an infringement to import foreign made articles 
which are covered by a United States patent. 

Design patents are infringed when the unauthorized 
article or machine has a similar appearance which will 
cause a purchaser to buy it under the impression that 
it is the authorized article or machine. The infringe- 
ment of a design patent, then, depends on whether or 
not the unauthorized design deceives the purchaser by 
its similarity. 

A patent for a product is infringed by an identical 
product regardless of how it is made. 

Other cases of infringement have already been con- 
sidered in previous chapters. 

Contributory Infringement. — Patents that are really 
protective deserve to be. Some of the best brains have 
been devoted to the task of avoiding infringement. The 
tricks employed are for the most part intricate and in- 
genious. As an example: Several parties get their 
heads together and agree that each shall make or supply 
only a part of a patented combination, so that the pur- 
chaser can put the parts together and have a complete 
machine. This is an obvious case of infringement, but 
the idea is that it would not pay the patentee to sue in 
each individual case. The courts have decided other- 
wise, however, and a part of a patented combination is 
held to be an infringement when it can be proved that 
it is made for the purpose of a combination with other 
parts to make up the patente(^ combination. This 
principle is so well established and the methods so old 
that it would seem that it would not be repeatedly tried. 



170 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

The Infringer. — If an infringer agrees or has agreed 
to adrait the vaHdity of any claims, he cannot defend 
himself by claiming that they are invalid. When the 
infringer is the party who sold the patent to the patentee, 
he cannot escape by declaring that the patent is invalid, 
in spite of the fact that others may. 

An infringer cannot escape by shoTvang that he in- 
vented the device or the like independently and wdthout 
knowledge of the patentee's patent, unless he can prove 
his priority. 

An infringer cannot escape because his device shows 
some alleged or apparent improvements over the paten- 
tee's, unless it is also independent of the main principles 
claimed by the patentee. It is a common practice for 
infringers to make this attempt. 

Defenses of the Infringer. — In defense the infringer 
may show that the patent is invalid by reason of previous 
knowledge or use, that it was in public use two years 
before the application was filed, that the patentee was 
not the true inventor but pirated the idea, that the 
invention was abandoned before the patent was taken 
out, or other defenses may be introduced. In fact, the 
patentee is quite likely to see his patent pounded, 
battered, held up and riddled vriih. holes, and otherwise 
rendered useless and void. But the mere infringer's 
statements are not suJBS.cient, they must be proved. The 
infringer may do a number of things by mere words, but 
unless the assertions can be proved, the patent remains 
as strong or stronger than ever. Once the validity has 
been established by the ccfurts, the patentee is gener- 
ally reassured of the protection which it affords and 
imless his opponent is very stubborn he is not likely to 
be troubled further. 

A patent is understood as valid until it is proved void 
by clear evidence of prior knowledge or uses. The pro- 



ABOUT INFRINGEMENTS 171 

cedure in such cases is strict and the evidence relied 
upon must be very strong and conclusive. As in a 
criminal trial, the evidence must prove the assertions 
beyond a reasonable doubt. In spite of the present 
tendency in such cases, a patent is not and should not be 
an absurd document which can be declared invalid for 
the slightest cause or the most trifling showing. A 
patent is property, a particularly valuable property, 
which should not be lightly forfeited or taken from 
the owner upon the slightest pretenses. Patentees are 
entitled to the full protection of the law and their rights 
should not be made the target of legal sharpers backed 
by large sums of money. 

The Center of the Fight. — The whole fight revolves 
about the claims in an infringement suit and a brief 
summary of the principles involved are essential to an 
understanding of this subject. 

The average claim can be interpreted in several ways. 
The court must determine the exact standing of the 
patent involved before deciding the case. It seeks to 
establish the precise invention for which protection was 
asked and given by the Government. If there are 
several interpretations, the patentee is entitled to the 
most favorable one. A patentee is generally given the 
maximum favor in the interpretation. He is credited 
for the greatest protection which his claims can possibly 
afford. Even a poorly constructed claim may receive 
a favorable definition in a few instances. The strong 
claim always has the distinct advantage, however, and 
in numerous cases it will effectively check the enthu- 
siasm of infringers and prevent them from fighting a 
hopeless suit. 

The courts are established for the very purpose of 
providing justice and the patentee is entitled to an 
equitable decision. A mere legal raillery or technical net- 



172 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

work, however complicated, will not deter justice, pro- 
vided, however, that the patentee can " stick it out." 
Indeed, there have been cases in which justice was de- 
ferred until the goose over which the trouble started 
was gone and there was nothing left to fight about. 
Again, an alarming number of " bluff cases " are in- 
stituted in a successful attempt to sustain extravagant 
and nonmeritorious claims against financially crippled 
parties. The instigators know that it will never pay 
the other party to spend thousands of dollars over a 
matter which involves only a trifling consideration. 

Litigation. Chance of Success 

Any first-class patent attorney will tell you that if a 
patent is to be litigated there are but two chances in five 
that it will be held infringed, that there is one chance in 
four that every patent litigated will be held void or in- 
valid in whole or in part and that as far as appealed cases 
are concerned, there is but one chance in ten that a patent 
held to infringe in the lower court will be held not to 
infringe in the higher court. 

All patentees are entitled to protection for what their 
patent shows, rather than a restricted embodiment of 
the same. The function, principles involved, or the 
mode of operation is of greater importance than the 
mere terms used in the claim. The inventor is happily 
entitled to equivalents. It would not be fair to him if 
mere changes to avoid his patent were sanctioned. He 
is entitled to all constructions which perform the same 
function in substantially the same manner. This may 
be taken as a definition of the term '' equivalents," and 
is not limited to a definite scope. It may be under- 
stood as of great scope and breadth so as to include 
practically everything which performs the same func- 
tion. The interpretation depends largely on the indi- 



ABOUT INFRINGEMENTS 173 

vidual case and the state of the prior art. Thus, a 
pioneer inventor is entitled to a very broad interpreta- 
tion while a mere improvement may scarcely come within 
the scope outlined. 

Here, again, the value of a series of claims is obvious. 
If one or more of the claims is held invalid, there will 
still be valid claims. If the broad .claims are held in- 
valid the narrow claims may be relied upon, and so on. 
A single valid claim may save the whole patent and 
cause it to be upheld and infringed. 

While the patentee is generally favored with liberality, 
he cannot, in the majority of cases, receive protection 
for more than he originally claims. The courts hold 
him to his claims and the infringer escapes if they are 
avoided by substituting a less number of parts without 
substituting any equivalents for the parts so omitted. 
The addition to the number of parts to secure opera- 
tiveness or alleged improvements, on the other hand, 
does not avoid infringement, since the patentee is en- 
titled to an implied meaning in his claims which will 
make the combination operative. Briefly, allowing for 
the other conditions, additions do not avoid infringe- 
ment, but subtractions do. The courts will never read 
a component out of the claim but they will read it into 
a claim. The modifiers to each component are also 
taken into consideration as the case may require. 

The Remedies. — The remedies for infringement are 
threefold. The patentee is entitled to an injunction, 
damages, or profits, or two or all of these as the case 
may be. 

Injunction. — An injunction serves to restrain further 
usurpation of the patent rights either temporarily or 
permanently as the case may be. The object is to carry 
out the provisions of the patent statutes either on the 
reasonable assumption or actual proof of the validity 



174 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

and infringement of the rights, in preventing competi- 
tion. An injunction is the main remedy for infringe- 
ment. 

Damages. — Damages are the pecuniary injury re- 
sulting from loss of sales or the like and can only be 
recovered upon actual proof. They are generally diffi- 
cult to prove and can seldom be obtained. They may 
be recovered, however, and the court can compel the 
infringer to render an account. 

Damages and profits cannot be collected for a period of 
more than six years prior to the commencement of suit. 
In the absence of an established Hcense fee there is almost 
no chance to recover damages for infringement and when 
an injunction cannot be obtained the patentee is sub- 
stantially without remedy. 

Profits. — Similar provisions apply to profits. They 
can generally be recovered upon proof but the patentee 
must prove the amount. Both profits and damages are 
thus difiicult to obtain and the injunction must be relied 
upon for the main remedy. When allowed, damages and 
profits are restricted by numerous factors such as deduc- 
tions for cost of selling, influence of improvement patents, 
etc. 

Preliminary Injunction. — When the validity of a 
patent is established as by a previous and successful 
infringement suit or the general acquiescence of the 
public as to its validity, a form of injunction termed 
'' preliminary injunction " may be obtained. This is a 
very valuable weapon in the hands of the honest paten- 
tee and the only regret is that it is difficult to obtain 
in the majority of infringement cases. It restrains the 
infringer from continuing the infringement from the be- 
ginning and during the progress of the suit and if pro- 
visions were made for its general use on less difficult 
grounds the author believes that infringers would be 



ABOUT INFRINGEMENTS 175 

generally discouraged to the lasting benefit of honest 
patentees. Our patent statutes are very favorable in 
granting patents but are sadly lacking in enforcing 
them. This is perhaps the greatest defect in the pres- 
ent system and until the matter is improved no patent 
can be insured of its validity beyond doubt without 
unwarranted expense and delay. The patent is useless 
during the suit in most cases and unless a preliminary 
injunction has been issued the effective term of the 
patent is generally curtailed. It is hoped that this state 
of affairs will be remedied in the near future. 

Infringers, however, take the risks that an average 
criminal does and a final reckoning is a possibility which 
may mean their ruin. 

The foregoing is based on numerous decisions and 
while far from complete, it covers the general items in- 
volved in this complicated part of patent procedure. 
It is perhaps well to mention that only a very small 
per cent of the patents issued are ever involved in in- 
fringement suits, but that a really valuable and im- 
portant patent is very lucky to escape infringement of 
one sort or another. As in the case of civil suits of any 
kind, it is sometimes advisable to call a truce and make 
peace with the other party even if he is wrong. Peace is 
generally less expensive in the end than war. 

The matter of infringement and the difficult remedies from it are 
one of the greatest defects in our patent system. The entire efforts 
of inventors and those interested in inventions should be directed 
toward remedies for this intolerable state of affairs. There has 
been a commendable movement to this effect in the past but no 
results have appeared as yet. That it is an important subject is an 
established fact for under the present statutes, such procedure and 
liability to such procedure is a dead weight upon the shoulders of 
honest inventors and tends to defeat the very purpose of the Con- 
stitution, namely, to encourage invention. 



CHAPTER XIV 
POINTS ABOUT FOREIGN PATENTS 

The opportunities offered to inventors by foreign 
patents are, for the most part, not as great as in the 
United States, but they should not be underestimated. 
Taken collectively, a group of valid foreign patents will 
often exceed the value of the United States patent. 
There have even been cases in which the inventor was 
forced to look to foreign countries to develop his inven- 
tion when American manufacturers would not hear him. 
To the modern manufacturer a group of foreign patents 
is almost essential to insure his foreign trade. Not a few 
manufacturers have found their safety in foreign patents 
in times of domestic inactivity. There are manu- 
facturers in foreign countries, on the other hand, who are 
always willing to consider new and meritorious inven- 
tions. 

Foreign patents, however, are full of pitfalls for the 
unwary, and should be taken out only after mature 
thought and advice. No valuable invention should be 
neglected in this matter and no insignificant minor in- 
vention of limited utility should ordinarily be en- 
couraged and protected by foreign patents. Perhaps 
the first item is to determine the probable demand in a 
given foreign country. It would be obviously unwise 
to patent a hydraulic motor in a country without water 
power, a gold dredge in a country without gold, or any 
device in a country in which it could not be used. It 
would also be unwise to patent a device intended for a 
prosperous people in a country which is notorious for 
its poverty. The illustrations might be continued al- 

176 



POINTS ABOUT FOREIGN PATENTS 177 

most indefinitely. The first point, then, is to ascer- 
tain if the foreign country needs the invention. 

The expense of taking out foreign patents will prob- 
ably bother the average inventor. Unfortunately he is 
often misled by poor advice and finds that his invest- 
ment can never even be repaid in part. The practice of 
filing foreign patents regardless of the essential consider- 
ations of patentability, validity, and demand, on the 
part of some attorneys is not to be commended. Foreign 
patents should be entrusted only to attorneys of known 
integrity and standing. The inventor will then be fully 
advised as to the usefulness of foreign patents in his 
particular case. He will also be assured that his several 
applications will be filed to secure the maximum term 
in all countries, since some countries cause their patent 
grants to lapse at the time any other country causes it to 
expire. Foreign patents, with few exceptions, must be 
filed within twelve months from the date of filing the 
United States application. 

Foreign Patent Costs; Taxes; Sales Without Patents 

Foreign patent laws differ materially from the United 
States Statutes for the most part and the inventor 
should have some idea of the general features of the lead- 
ing countries in this respect. Many countries grant 
patents to the first applicant whether he is the inventor 
or not. Unscrupulous persons, styled ^' introducers,'' 
can thus pirate and prosper on the inventions of nonag- 
gressive foreign inventors. Many of the foreign countries 
have no searching system and grant patents without any 
preliminary examination to determine the novelty and 
patentability. As a result an unscrupulous attorney 
can obtain fees by obtaining a patent in such coun- 
tries for almost anything. This is done sometimes in 
spite of the fact that the United States and Canada have 



178 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

already refused to grant a patent on the same subject 
matter because of references found in the search. Such 
a patent is absolutely worthless, however, since most of 
these countries provide that any patents which they 
grant become void if it is found that the subject matter 
was old at the tirae the patent was granted. The 
patent can be subsequently invalidated upon a showing 
in this respect, which is sure to result if the patent rights 
should be of value. Another general feature of foreign 
patents is the matter of taxes. Nearly every such 
country requires some kind of a tax on the patent. 
Some require a yearly tax while others require a tax 
after a few years. Some allow a short period of grace 
for the payment of taxes and others provide for the im- 
mediate lapse of the patent rights upon nonpayment of 
the required taxes. While the initial expense in taking 
a patent may thus be small, the total expense for the 
full term may be large. This is particularly true in 
countries which provide for a constantly increasing scale 
of taxes. In Russia, for instance, the first expense is 
moderate, but the total cost for the fifteen-year term 
amounts to $1097, independent of attorney fees. 
Another feature which should be noticed is the fact that 
many countries require the invention to be worked with- 
in a certain number of years and to be forfeited if it is 
not worked. Others provide for compulsory licenses 
upon a showing. Some countries provide that the 
government shall have free use of all patented inven- 
tions. The provisions vary widely according to the 
country concerned. 

Many manufacturers believe that it is better policy 
to spend the money required for foreign patents and fac- 
tories on development in the United States. This is 
particularly true when the product has a limited sale; 
a manufacturer can then maintain a profitable export 



POINTS ABOUT FOREIGN PATENTS 179 

trade on the U. S. Patent alone for the sales in any single 
country are not large enough to encourage competition. 

In all, about seventy-five of the main countries and 
provinces have patent laws. The chief countries will 
be considered more in detail. Owing to the fact that 
some countries have made amendments to their statutes 
these lists may not be entirely accurate and should only 
be understood as giving the general features. Holland, 
for instance, has but recently established a patent 
system. 

Those granting patents without preliminary exami- 
nations are, France, the German Gebrauchsmuster (three- 
year patent), Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Switzer- 
land, Mexico, Brazil, and Tunis. As before stated, 
patents are easily obtained in these countries. Any 
proof subsequently as to nonpatentability, that the in- 
vention was claimed too broadly, or that the invention 
was not clearly claimed, or that other requirements were 
not adhered to render such a patent invalid in most of 
these countries. When a United States patent is re- 
fused, it is useless to patent the same subject matter 
in these countries in practically every case. Germany 
is an exception to the above list since the regular patent 
(fifteen-year term) is rigidly examined. Great Britain 
now has a limited search system in which British patents 
only are referred to in the examination. This examina- 
tion, however, does not go more than fifty years back. 

Preliminary Search; Taxes; Compulsory License 

Countries having a preliminary search system are 
Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Austria, Russia, Den- 
mark, Sweden, Norway, Japan, Argentine Republic, 
and Liberia. This is a mere formality in some coun- 
tries. Canada and Germany have a system equal to 
that in the United States in many respects. Germany 



180 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

refuses to grant patents on any invention open to doubt 
and as a result those which are allowed have a strong 
presumption of validity. Most foreign countries do not 
consider ap invention as new if it is already known or 
used by others at the time the application is made. Even 
a publication of the invention renders it unpatentable in 
some countries. The announcement of an invention in 
the U. S. Patent Office Gazette is sufficient to render 
patents subsequently applied for in .foreign countries 
invalid for the most part. As an instance we might 
mention the Wright Brothers' aeroplane patent rights 
which were recently declared invalid in Germany on 
account of a technical publication reference. 

Foreign patents should be filed before the United 
States patent is published and preferably before it is 
even allowed in full. The United States laws, however, 
provide for a term of six months after the application 
has been allowed before requiring the final fee and the 
publication of the patent. This allows our inventors to 
file foreign applications which will be valid and is a very 
useful provision. 

The first applicant, whether he is the inventor or not, 
may apply for the patent in Germany, France, Belgium, 
Portugal, and some other countries. Some of these pro- 
vide that the patent thus obtained is invalid unless the 
applicant had the inventor's consent. In Great Britain, 
Austria, and other countries, the law provides for the 
transfer of the patent to the inventor regardless of a 
previous grant to another party who was not the in- 
ventor. 

The first year's taxes are generally included in the 
original apphcation fees in most countries and the work- 
ing is easily complied with in some countries. The 
commercial manufacture of the invention is however re- 
quired by some countries. The compulsory licenses which 



POINTS ABOUT FOREIGN PATENTS 181 

are required by some countries are intended to prevent 
the nonuse of needed inventions. Great Britain, Ger- 
many, Austria, Hungary, and others have this provision. 
American inventors receive particular favor in some in- 
stances by reason of treaties which the United States 
has made. Thus, an American inventor cannot be com- 
pelled to work his patent in Germany on account of 
the treaty of Feb. 23, 1909.* 

Many foreign countries require the applicant to place 
himself under the jurisdiction of their laws by appoint- 
ing a representative in the country. This is generally 
done automatically by international attorney connec- 
tions. The address requirement of some countries is 
also complied with in this manner. 

Certain classes of invention which are granted patents 
in the United States cannot be patented in some foreign 
countries. Among these are foodstuffs, or medicines 
produced by chemical processes. 

Many countries provide for patents of addition. 
These patents are for improvements on the original 
patent as filed and generally terminate at the time the 
main patent expires. They can generally be obtained 
for a nominal extra fee. Some countries provide for 
patents of varying terms with a sliding scale of fees. 
The fees in some countries of minor importance will be 
found to be greater than the fees for protection in the 
main countries. Patents in some countries are of little 
more utility than the mere name. 

The most desirable foreign patents for the average 
invention appear to be for Canada, Great Britain, Ger- 
many, and France. The others are of course valuable 

* See "The German Patent System," H. Wertheim, Scientific 
American Supplement 73: 404 June 29, 1912 (reprinted also in other 
journals) for a concise account of the rights of American inventors 
in Germany. 



182 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

in many cases, but these should be considered first. If 
the inventor feels that he cannot afford to assume the 
expense for procuring these it will generally be advisable 
to procure a partner or assistance, taking precautions 
to protect the agreements with insuring clauses. If the 
invention is really meritorious, financial assistance can 
probably be obtained by an agreement to divide one- 
half of the profits or the like. Ordinarily, undivided 
interests, co-ownership as joint inventors and similar 
pacts should not be resorted to. Some countries permit 
a financial backer to be named as a joint inventor 
whether he is or not. The Canadian patent should 
generally be obtained to supplement the United States 
patent. The Canadian laws and procedure are nearly 
identical with the laws and procedure in this country 
with a few minor exceptions. The complete rules and 
laws can be had gratis by applying to the Commissioner 
of Patents, Ottawa, Canada. The Canadian laws provide 
that a patented invention must not be imported into 
Canada after one year. 

In many foreign countries the term of the patent begins 
with the date of application instead of the date of the 
grant as in the United States. 

The German full-term patent is generally conceded to 
be the most difficult to obtain. It is generally of greater 
value for this reason. There have been cases in which 
the German patent was refused after the United States 
patent had been allowed. Germany and other coun- 
tries have a publication system, by which the public is 
advised of the pending allowance and given an opportu- 
nity to make a protest. This method gives a further 
assurance of validity to the patentee. 



POINTS ABOUT FOREIGN PATENTS 183 

The International Convention for the Protection of Indus- 
trial Property. {Office at Berne, Switzerland. 
Official language — French.'^) 

This union is one of vital importance to inventors and 
manufacturers. It embraces the United States, Great 
Britain with New Zealand and Commonwealth of Aus- 
tralia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, France with Tunis, 
Algeria, and French Colonies, Italy, Swiss Confedera- 
tion, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands 
with Dutch East and West Indies, Spain, Portugal, 
Turkey, Servia, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Chili, Ecuador, 
and a few others. 

The convention has done much to bring about a 
standardization of patent procedure in spite of the vary- 
ing laws in each case. Its work has been of great im- 
portance and it is hoped will eventually lead to uniform 
patent laws in the leading countries. The requirements 
of many laws have already been modified by provisions 
in the convention agreements. The main points are: 

1. An applicant is given a period of twelve months 
during which he enjoys the right of priority for the pur- 
pose of making applications in any other countries to 
the agreement other than that filed. 

2. A subsequent deposit made during the twelve- 
month period in any country to the agreement cannot 
be declared invalid by acts performed during the in- 
terval, as publication, or working, or sale. 

3. Patents applied for in the different contracting 
states are independent of patents for the same subject 
matter obtained in any other country. NoIck Countries 
not in the Union generally provide that the patent in 
that particular state lapses at the same time another 

* French is used in the preparation of patent documents in 
several countries. 



184 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

patent for the same subject matter lapses even if this 
takes place before the full term is completed. 

4. When legislation prevents seizure on importation, 
prohibition of importation may be substituted. Note: 
The leading countries including the United States gen- 
erally allow importation. 

5. A patentee in each country of the Union does not 
suffer forfeiture because of nonworking until after the 
minimum of three years after the application in the 
country concerned and in cases where he does not jus- 
tify the reasons for the inaction. 

6. Applications under the treaty must be modified to 
comply with the individual formalities of each country. 

Note: The procedure in many countries is similar and 
duplicate documents can be used in some cases. Some 
countries allow of a choice of languages. 

Infringement of Foreign Patents. — In general the 
patentee enjoys almost as great protection from in- 
fringement in foreign countries as in the United States. 
In some countries he has even greater rights in this 
matter, A few general notes concerning infringement 
follow : 

France provides aggressive measures for the pro- 
visional confiscation of infringing articles. 

Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and others make the viola- 
tion of patent rights punishable by fines. 

Canada and England provide for civil procedure as 
in the United States. (A penal servitude of three years 
may be imposed for infringement in Japan.) 

The proper marking of the patented article is re- 
garded as essential in order to notify the public in most 
countries. In Germany this is — Patent, D. R. P., or 
Deutches Reichspatent. In France this is — brevete — 
or — brevet — and S. G. D. G. (sans garantie du gouvern- 
ment). In France the patentee is liable to a fine for 



POINTS ABOUT FOREIGN PATENTS 185 

using the mark after the expiration of the patent. 
Other countries generally allow such use without lia- 
bility. 

Foreign countries generally provide a fine for the 
fraudulent use of the word ''patented." In Canada 
this is $200, in England |25, and in Germany $250. 

France requires that the taxes be paid before an assign- 
ment of the patent rights can be recorded. 

In England the owner of a valid patent is given note- 
worthy protection. An infringer cannot avoid infringe- 
ment by dropping even an unimportant element of a 
claim in his combination. 

The patentee is not required to mark the article 
patented, in England. 

Co-owners may sue separately in England. 

Canada provides a penalty for nonmarking of patented 
articles but this does not prevent the collection of 
damages. 

In general, the leading foreign countries provide equal 
or greater protection against infringement than the 
United States. The procedure in Germany in infringe- 
ment suits is particularly direct and effective. 

The foregoing is only of a general nature and since 
the subject is a large one it is not complete. It is thought 
that these points will be sufficient for ordinary purposes 
and the reader is referred to legal advice, encyclopedias, 
and '' Foreign and Colonial Patent Laws," by W. C. 
Fairweather.* Manufacturers can also get information 
from the Consular Service with respect to particular 
countries. 

Foreign patent rights are often sold through brokers. 
The principles involved do not vary materially from the 

* D. Van Nostrand Co., $3.00; Hornung's ''The Patentee" 
was referred to in preparing this chapter. Published by W. Hom- 
ung, Ph.D., Detroit, Michigan. 



186 IX\^NTIOXS AND PATENTS 

procedure in selling domestic rights and too much care 
cannot be taken in choosing a reliable representative. 
Domestic manufacturers with growing foreign trade can 
be interested in the foreign rights to the inventions in 
their line. The subject is worth the consideration of 
every patentee. 

Concerning the International Patent. — Of course this 
does not exist at the present time, but there is a strong 
tendency towards such a universal protection for inven- 
tors. We have this protection at the present time for 
authors and there are only details which stand in the 
way of a similar protection for inventors. The Inter- 
national Convention has already done much to this end, 
but of course the effort has not reached the point of a 
universal statute and protection, as yet. By an Inter- 
national Patent is meant a patent which will be issued 
to an inventor in any country which TN^ill be valid in 
every country and which will enjoy identical privileges 
in every country. 

This would be ideal for the collective inventor but at 
the present time there are several obstacles in the vrsij. 
The patent would have to be issued in a main office for 
the whole world or in several branch offices in each 
countrj^ and at the same time be thoroughl}^ examined 
and rendered reasonably valid in every country. The 
difficulties are thus intricate. Interferences and in- 
fringements would have to be successfully met with so 
that the International Patent would be more than a mere 
legal snarl. The system would have to be adapted to 
suit the individual requirements of each countr}^ for a 
share in the fees, jurisdiction, and the like, and some 
universal style would have to be adhered to in making 
applications and in other procedure. The subject thus 
becomes complex. It is hoped that such a system will 
be successfully evolved in the near future or at least 



POINTS ABOUT FOREIGN PATENTS 187 

that the laws of the leading foreign countries will be 
standardized and made more uniform. It seems that 
the latter step will have to be taken before the Inter- 
national Patent can be satisfactorily evolved. 

At the present time, however, we have not even a 
satisfactory domestic set of laws for patent rights and 
until a perfected system is evolved not an erg of energy 
should be expended in other directions. 

The war which began in August of 1914 brought about 
a unique congestion in domestic and foreign patent rela- 
tions. This was promptly relieved, however, by special 
provisions for the payment of fees, taxes, for signatures, 
etc. Provisions for patent protection naturally foUow 
political fluctuations but the special conditions relating 
to patents are properly considered to have only temporary 
significance. 



CHAPTER XV 
THOUGHTS ON INVENTION AND INVENTORS 

Th'invention all admired, and each how he to be the inventor 

missed; so easy it seemed, 
Once found, which, yet unfomid, most would have thought 

impossible. 

Milton. 

How true, even to-day, and this from Dickens: 

Is it reasonable to make a man feel as if, in inventing an ingen- 
ious improvement meant to do good, he has done something wrong? 
How else can a man feel after he is met with difficulties at every 
turn? . . . And look at the expense, how hard on me, and how 
hard on the country, if there is any merit in me (and my invention 
is took up now, I am thankful to say, and doing well), to put me to 
all that expense. 

Lord Bacon tells us: 

The introduction of great inventions appears one of the most 
distinguished of human actions, and the ancients so considered it; 
for they assigned divine honors to the authors of inventions, but 
only heroic honors to those who displayed civil merit (such as the 
founders of cities and empires, legislators, the deliverers of their 
country from lasting misfortune, the quellers of tjTants, and the 
Uke). And if anyone rightly compare them he will find the judg- 
ment of antiquity to be correct, for the benefits derived from 
inventions may extend to mankind in general, but civil benefits to 
particular lands alone; the latter, moreover, last but for a time, the 
former forever. 

President McKinley said: 

Our future progress and prosperity depend upon our abiUty to 
equal, if not surpass, other nations in the enlargement and advance 
of science, industry, and commerce. To invention we must turn as 
one of the most powerful aids in the accompHshment of such a 
result. 

188 



THOUGHTS ON INVENTION AND INVENTORS 189 

Professor Robinson (Robinson on Patents) says: 

Thus, although at the outset our patent laws were in some im- 
portant aspects more favorable to the inventor than those of Eng- 
land, the development of the theory that the inventor is necessarily 
a pubhc benefactor, and that the means adopted for his protection 
and encouragement are in themselves promotive of the public good, 
has here as well as there produced its legitimate results in the con- 
stant increase of his exclusive privilege and the corresponding Umita- 
tion of the pubHc rights. 

Walker, on Patents, has this to say: 

The right of property which an inventor has in his invention is 
excelled in point of dignity by no other property right whatever. 
It is equaled in point of dignity only by the rights which authors 
have in their copyrighted books. The inventor is not the pampered 
favorite or beneficiary of the Government or of the nation. The 
benefits which he confers are greater than those which he receives. 
He does not cringe at the feet of power nor secure from authority 
an unbought privilege. He walks everywhere erect and scatters 
abroad the knowledge which he created. He confers upon man- 
kind a new means of lessening toil or of increasing comfort, and 
what he gives cannot be destroyed by use nor lost by misfortune. 
It is henceforth an indestructible heritage of posterity. On the 
other hand, he receives from the Government nothing which costs 
the Government or the people a dollar or a sacrifice. He receives 
nothing but a contract which provides that for a Hmited time he 
may exclusively enjoy his own. Side by side stand the inventor 
and the author. Their labor is the most dignified and the most 
honorable of all labor, and the resulting property is most perfectly 
theirs. 

Joseph R. Edson in his efforts to have extensions for 
patents provided for, says: 

Litigation, protracted through years, fruitless quest for capital, 
fruitless expenditures of his own resources, heartbreaking disappoint- 
ments, and grinding poverty too often fiU up the short term of a 
patent. 

In my humble judgment no amendment to the patent laws could 
do as much for the honor and glory of our country as the passage 
of some general law for the extension of patents in proper cases. 



190 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

Senator 0. H. Piatt in his famous speech says: 

Mr. President, the patent fees ought to be reduced. A tax upon 
inventors which produces more than enough to pay the current 
expenses of the office is simply shameful. It is a tax upon knowl- 
edge, a tax on invention, a tax which in itself is as iniquitous and 
abominable as a tax upon authors or scientists would be. 

. . . When the fathers wrote that clause into the Constitution 
of the United States they builded better than they knew. They 
knew, indeed, that the prosperity of every nation must depend 
largely upon the progress of the useful arts. They knew that if this 
country was to attain the glory and the power which they hoped for 
it, it must be along the road of invention; but they could not — the 
wildest dreamer, the statesman with the most vivid imagination — ■ 
could never have dreamed, could never have imagined, the blessings, 
the beneficial results which should flow and have flowed from the 
exercise of the power thus granted to Congress. 

It is the manufacturer who has furnished the capital, the enter- 
prise to reduce these inventions to practical apphcation; it is the 
cunning workmen in the factories that have applied these inven- 
tions. The invention of the telegraph was a vast conception, but 
it has required the manufacturer and the artisan to make that 
profitable to the country. 

The truth is, and there is no avoiding it, that you cannot dis- 
connect in this country invention, m.anufactures, and agriculture. 
The triumph and the success of the one is the triumph and the success 
of all. They are interdependent coequal factors, as it were, in pro- 
ducing our prosperity and our happiness; and so with regard to the 
other industries of the country patents are directly connected with 
them aU and absolutely necessary to their successful pursuit. I 
will not stop to enlarge. . . . That nation which gets most of the 
world's trade is to be the first power of the globe. Both patriotism 
and the interests of humanity impel us to say that the United 
States must have it. How is it to obtain it? It is to be obtained 
only by encouraging the inventive genius of our citizens, by pro- 
tecting the patent system of the country and all that is involved 
and comprehended in that system; and as we stimulate the inven- 
tive faculty and protect the patent system, we shall steadily reduce 
the cost of production in this country until we are able to compete 
with the world, no matter what may be its system of labor. 



THOUGHTS ON INVENTION AND INVENTORS 191 

I know the argument is often used that inventions are opposed 
to the labor interests of the country. It is not true. There is a 
redistribution of labor whenever a new labor-saving machine is 
invented, but there is no destruction of labor. There is no degrada- 
tion of labor in invention. The man released from a particular kind 
of labor by the introduction of a labor-saving machine does not go 
down in the grade and scale of labor, but he ascends. He engages 
in some higher employment, in some more productive avocation, 
for patents elevate the laborer. New inventions open new fields 
of labor. 



A distinguished member of the Army told me within a short 
time that the only reliance of this country in case of war was upon 
the inventive genius of its people, that it had no Navy, that it had 
no suflScient Army, that it could only defend itseK by a special 
exercise of the inventive faculty of its citizens in caUing into imme- 
diate use and power new implements of warfare. 

Is not this vast system of property worth protecting? 

I have heard it argued that we had approached the perfection of 
the patent system, that there were no new worlds to conquer, that 
natinre had no more secrets to bestow upon mankind for their bene- 
fit. So far from this being the case, we stand but in the very vesti- 
bule of the great storehouse of nature's secrets. We have but 
gathered a few pebbles along the shore on which beats a Hmitless 
sea. There is no hmit to the evolution of human invention until 
it reaches the realm of the infinite. It requires no prophet's vision 
to see the coming glory and the coming triumph of the inventive 
skill of man. 

The Commissioners of the Patent Office have voiced 
the needs and appreciation of inventors on many 
occasions. 

The recent commissioner,* Edward Bruce Moore, says: 

The age of invention has just begun to dawn. The accomplish- 
ments of the last half century, while marvelous almost beyond con- 
ception, will not begin to compare with what will be done in the 
next haK century. 

* Thomas Ewing is now the commissioner. 



192 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

The former commissioners have left the following 
thoughts : 

What is now needed is the perfection of the system, better and 
more complete means for carrying it on, and more effectual means 
for protecting the inventor. — Commissioner Fisher. 

But for the patent system only an infinitesimal part of the tri- 
umph of inventive genius would have been accompUshed, and if 
we would cut the ground from beneath the material prosperity of 
the age, there is no way in which this could be more effectively done 
than by the repeal of our patent laws. — Commissioner Butterworth. 

It is a fact familiar to all who have given the subject matter any 
considerable attention that a very large proportion of the more 
valuable inventions are assigned in their infancy for trifling con- 
siderations, because of the indigent circumstances of the patentee. 
Assignees have in general made all the money that has been made 
from the original term of patents. — Commissioner Leggeit. 

The class of men who have given to their native land and to the 
world these grand inventions, whose beneficent influences tell with 
measureless power upon every pulsation of our domestic, social, and 
commercial life, are indeed public benefactors, and may well be par- 
doned for beheving that their wants should not be treated with 
entire indifference by that body, which represents alike the intellect 
and heart, as it does the material interests of the great country of 
which they are citizens — the Congress of the United States. — 
Commissioner Holt. 

It must, however, be borne in mind that many good inventions 
are not developed for the want of means; many are laid aside because, 
although good and useful, they are in advance of the art to which 
they belong. The protection afforded by the patent and the hope of 
reward have proved the incentives to invention. 

They do not deem it too much that the Patent Office, which is 
the only institution which they can properly call their own, and which 
they have built up with their money and estabhshed by their genius, 
shall be supplied upon a hberal scale with every appHance for the 
performance in the best manner of all legitimate duties. — Samuel S. 
Fisher. 

But the territories of American invention know no Pacific Sea. 
Their farther bounds expand as their hither borders are occupied, 
inimitable in extent and inexhaustible in resources, they will yield 
up unimagined treasures of invention in all the coming centuries. 



THOUGHTS ON INVENTION AND INVENTORS 193 

just as they have done in the hundred years of marvels whose 
recorded story, drawing toward its close, is at once the tribute and 
the glory of the American patent system. — C. E. Mitchell. 

A vastly large number of inventions are of a greater value than 
the public dreams, and those which seem to fall dead contain within 
them the seeds of suggestion which later lives and grows to rich 
fruition. — W. E. Simonds. 

It is to the stimulus to invention given by our patent system 
that the greatest increase in our exports is largely due, and it is on 
American invention, as fostered and stimulated by the patent 
system, that we may confidently depend for abiHty to maintain the 
high rates of wages to American workmen and yet compete success- 
fully in the markets of the world with nations where the workman 
receives but meager return for his labor. — A. P. Greeley. 

Let us not forget that it is the American inventors who by their 
inventions and discoveries "have made the last fifty years of the 
nineteenth century the most remarkable of recorded time, " and 
at the same time have laid the civilized world under tribute to 
American manufacturers. 

In return for all this our inventors only ask for a fair. field and 
fair treatment. An enhghtened public sentiment demands that 
their requests should be considered with favor by the Congress of 
the United States. — C. H. Duell. 

The readers are doubtless familiar with Thomas A. 
Edison's formula for genius — two per cent inspira- 
tion and ninety-eight per cent perspiration. The follow- 
ing are further thoughts from this master mind. 

We are only at the beginning of knowledge. We are just begin- 
ning to emerge from the dog stage. All around us there are wonder- 
ful things going on of which we have not the slightest cognizance. 

The next era will mark the most wonderful advance in science and 
invention that the world has ever known or hoped for. So vast will 
that advance be that we can now have scarcely any conception of 
its scope; but already a great many of the inventions of the future 
are assured. 

I believe that any person, even of the most limited capacity, 
could become an inventor by sheer hard work. You can do almost 



194 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

anything if you keep at it long enough. Of course, the man with 
a natural aptitude would get there first, but the plodder would 
eventually gain his point. The constant brooding on the one thing 
is sure to develop new ideas concerning it, and these in turn suggest 
others, and soon the complete idea stands out before you. Above 
all things a man must not give up, once he has outhned his plan of 
action. A ball rolling down hiU is sure to reach the bottom ulti- 
mately, no matter how many obstacles stand in the way. It is this 
principle which finally levels mountains. So, once fairly on your 
way, don't stop because of some seemingly impassable object in 
front of you. What you want may be just beyond your nose, 
though you do not see it. 

Man is a thinking animal. AU he can do is to turn his thoughts 
the best way. — Sir W. Temple. 

These thought motives might be continued almost m- 
definitely, and in justice to those omitted it is stated that 
there are numerous equally valuable and pithy thoughts 
which have been voiced by others. 



CHAPTER XVI 

THE PRESENT AND FUTURE OF INVENTIONS AND 
PATENTS. LEGISLATION. A SCHOOL OF 
INVENTION 

Inventions and their protection by the patent system 
have now been considered in some detail. Let us con- 
sider the present status of the subject and its future. 

Legislation. — The many defects and needed re- 
forms in our patent system have already been pointed 
out at some length. Various bills have been formulated 
in recent years, some with the honest intent to improve 
and others with less commendable features. For the 
most part these bills, including provisions for extensions 
of patents in meritorious cases, the building of a new 
Patent Office, and the other needed items have never 
been passed. Our legislative system is such that these 
bills can readily be lost in the committee or through 
differences in the status desired by the house and the 
Senate. Inventors as a whole have taken but mild 
interest in the hearings for the several bills at the sev- 
eral times and as a result it appears that their interests 
have suffered to some extent. Every inventor and all 
persons interested in inventions should do everything 
possible to support worthy bills in the right direction 
and to prevent the passage of bad bills.* 

At the present writing the greatest interest is centered 

* Copies of such biUs and also reports can be obtained free from 
your Congressman. Thus the hearings before the committee on 
patents on H. R. 23417, 62d Congress include twenty-seven pamph- 
lets treating the matter of revision in detail. The hearings are full 
of interest to the inventor. 

195 



196 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

in a bill known as the Oldfield Bill after its author.* The 
recent Henry-Dick case and its resulting publicity has 
given an impetus to the efforts to have it approved. It 
contains a number of radical provisions, some good and 
others decidedly against the interests of inventors. The 
bill is directed at the rights of the inventor and seeks to 
limit his opportunity to fully enjoy the rights granted 
him under the present statutes and their interpretation. 
The features which have been most strenuously objected 
to at the hearings are the matter of compulsory licenses 
(similar to those imposed in foreign countries), the 
limitation of improvement patents so that a monopoly 
cannot be aided by their use (providing for the expira- 
tion of the main patent and the improvement patent 
simultaneously regardless of the date at which the 
latter is secured, as in foreign countries), and the matter 
of restrictions to licenses (intended to correct the sup- 
posed evils of license restrictions, maintained prices, 
etc., made possible under the present statutes). The 
latter item has consumed a great deal of time at the 
hearings to the practical exclusion of the other vital 
items. Indeed the bantering in such matters is dis- 
couraging to the composite inventor. Why cannot 
some congressman or senator draw up a good and needed 
bill which will stand the test and then engineer it through 
to the end? Why try to follow in the steps of foreign 
countries by taking a step backward instead of for- 
ward? Why not give our patent system a greater in- 
stead of a lesser value? All these and other questions 
are of vital concern to all inventors and those interested 
in inventions. And further, this means practically 
every citizen, for one and all owe a great deal to inven- 
tors and a liberal patent system. 

* Mr. Oldfield's bill appears (1915) to have been abandoned but 
the issues involved will doubtless come before Congress again. 



PRESENT AND FUTURE OF INVENTIONS, ETC. 197 

The Kahn bill providing for what araounts to an in- 
contestable patent for three years after the close of the 
Panama-Pacific Exposition to every owner of foreign 
rights regardless of novelty or the usual qualifications 
who exhibits at the exposition, has been enacted into a 
law. There is a strong protest by thinking inventors 
against this unfair law and it is likely that it will be 
amended in time to prevent it from interfering with the 
present statutes. 

As pointed out in another chapter, the matter of 
international and uniform legislation will have to take 
its own course of evolution. Every effort should be 
directed to the matter of adequate and necessary legis- 
lation. Attention is directed to the resolutions which 
were sent to the President by the Inventors' Guild which 
will be found in the appendix, as a further exposition of 
needed legislation. 

Systematic Invention. — Each year sees a greater 
effort toward systematic invention. The individual 
inventor still continues, to be sure, and will very likely 
always produce the revolutionary inventions to a large 
extent, but the coming of the professional inventor and 
his staff, together with the inventors' staffs of corpo- 
rations is gradually limiting his field of activity. For 
certain kinds of inventions, the individual inventor is 
supreme and cannot be equaled, but for the improve- 
ment type of invention, the gradual commercial im- 
provement form of invention, inventors' staffs and 
trained groups of inventors with their facilities far out- 
class him.* However, as he realizes this he is also quick 
to adopt the new methods, and already we have several 
independent inventors with their own staffs. The inde- 

* Thus the new nitrogen electric lamp was invented by such a 
group, a feat which is conceded to be beyond the ability of the 
leading private inventors. 



198 INVENTIONS AND PATENTS 

pendent inventor will exist as long as the arts continue; 
moreover, the majority of the big inventions are sure 
to be originated in his brain. It is impossible to reduce 
all invention to a machine-like factor}^ result process and 
invention will always take its own course. 

On the other hand, there is a growing tendency on 
the part of the individual inventor to perfect himself, 
so to speak. He is constant!}^ learning by actual expe- 
rience and is becoming better trained and wiser each 
day. In short, he is striking out into profitable fields 
and is operating with a definite purpose and system. 
This movement is sure to result in increased triumphs 
for inventors as a whole and no one can foresee to what 
it will eventually lead. 

Inventors are recognized more each year and they 
have come to be a profession in themselves. In fact 
there is probably no profession which offers such oppor- 
tunities to prospective and willing members as inven- 
tion. In view of this fact, it seems impossible that it 
should not be recognized as such and taught in the 
schools and universities.* That such courses will be 
offered in the near future seems evident. 

It seems that such a course will be best worked out 
on the trade school plan — b}^ actual inventing. A will- 
ing student could be trained into the essential features 
of invention in this manner. His observation could be 
cultivated by well-known methods, his logic molded by 
other subjects, as geometrj^ and other logical mathe- 
matics, debate, etc., his mechanical ability fostered by 
shop and drafting practice, and finally his inventive 
ability drawn out by actual invention, first of simple 
contrivances, then of old complicated problems which 
have already been solved, and finally on original prob- 

* The present technical courses are of course an excellent train- 
ing. 



PRESENT AND FUTURE OF INVENTIONS, ETC. 199 

lems, all under the guidance of skilled aggressive 
instructors. Unlike other forms of engineering or pro- 
fessions, invention is not limited to any certain field 
and the student thus educated would be free to strike 
out into congenial and chosen fields. Who can fail to 
see the possibilities in this subject? 

Such a course is sure to do for invention what other 
courses have done for other arts and professions, and 
would certainly eliminate a great deal of waste and 
accomplish a great deal of good. The students at- 
tracted to such a course would naturally have consider- 
able undeveloped talent or bent for invention and the 
course necessary is thus narrowed down to the develop- 
ment of this natural trait. That it can be done is 
obvious and that such a course will be a great success 
seems assured. 

Invention should be considered a great profession, a 
comprehensive power, so to speak. Other professions 
do much for humanity but are limited to carrying out 
the things already invented, to a form of routine prac- 
tice over what the world already possesses. Invention, 
on the other hand, strikes out into new fields, conquers 
new problems, and creates new values, professions, and 
wealth. Others merely rearrange and consume the 
world's supply, while the inventor creates and adds to 
that very supply. This being true, can we have too 
many inventors? Can we do too much to encourage 
inventors? Can we do too much to aid inventors? 
Can we do too much to support inventions? Can we 
do too much to develop inventions? 



MEMORANDA 

Bearing in mind that the reader may think out many valuable 
ideas at any time, these sheets have been added for convenience. 
Experienced inventors of course aim to be systematic and have 
their own methods of taking notes. Unless the reader owns this 
book he should not use or mark these pages. 



200 



MEMORANDA 

Bearing in mind that the reader may think out many valuable 
ideas at any time, these sheets have been added for convenience. 
Experienced inventors of course aim to be systematic and have 
their own methods of taking notes. Unless the reader owns this 
book he should not use or mark these pages. 



201 



MEMORANDA 

Bearing in mind that the reader may think out many valuable 
ideas at any time, these sheets have been added for convenience. 
Experienced inventors of course aim to be systematic and have 
their own methods of taking notes. Unless the reader owns this 
book he should not use or mark these pages. 



202 



MEMORANDA 

Bearing in mind that the reader may think out many valuable 
ideas at any time, these sheets have been added for convenience. 
Experienced inventors of course aim to be systematic and have 
their own methods of taking notes. Unless the reader owns this 
book he should not use or mark this book. 



203 



MEMORANDA 

Bearing in mind that the reader may think out valuable ideas 
at any time, these sheets have been added for convenience. 



204 



MEMORANDA 

Bearing in mind that the reader may think out valuable ideas 
at any time, these sheets have been added for convenience. 



205 



MEMORANDA 

Bearing in mind that the reader may think out valuable ideas 
at any time, these sheets have been added for convenience. 



206 



APPENDIX 

Page 

Digests and Abridgments from Important Decisions 208 

Decisions Concerning Infringements 222 

Decisions Affecting the Rights of Patentees 235 

Court Decisions of Note 242 

Resolution of the Inventor's Guild 264 

Forms 267 

Chart for Draftsmen '. 268 

Patents Issued in Countries of the World 276 

Books on Inventions and Patents , 277 



207 



APPENDIX 

DIGESTS AND ABRIDGMENTS FROM IMPORTANT 

DECISIONS 

AutJior^s Note: "^Tiile these abridgments are far from complete, 
it is thought that they will be of value in supplementing the matter 
in the text. 

In re John Wedderburn and John Wedderburn 

& Co.* 

Decided September 30, 1897 

1. John Wedderburn and John Wedderburn & Co. 

Held Guilty of Gross Misconduct, and also 
THAT He and They Should Be Disbarred. 

The report of the Assistant Comniissioner in reference 
to the order upon John Wedderburn and John Wedder- 
burn & Co. to show cause why he or they should not be 
refused recognition as patent agent or patent agents, 
and the facts, evidence, and arguments in the case exam- 
ined, and Held that the said Wedderburn and Wedder- 
burn & Co. have been guilty of gross misconduct as 
agents or solicitors before the Patent Office, and that he 
and they should be disbarred. 

2. Disbarment Proceedings — Jurisdiction of the 

Commissioner — Relation of Solicitors to the 
Commissioner, Distinct from That of a Law- 
yer TO A Judge. 

The relation which a patent solicitor sustains to the 
Commissioner of Patents is not the same as that which a 

* Not a few of these methods are still employed by "scheme 
attorneys." John Wedderbm-n has recently been reinstated to 
practice. 

208 



APPENDIX 209 

member of a bar sustains to a court. The Commissioner 
is not a member of the judiciary, practitioners are not 
members of a court of which the Commissioner is judge, 
nor does the Commissioner have the authority or juris- 
diction of a judge in a disbarment proceeding. 

3. Same — Same — Corporation. 

The respondent corporation having, by advertisements, 
by their pamphlets and letter heads, and by the whole 
tenor of their correspondence with clients, put them- 
selves before the public as patent attorneys, cannot be 
heard to deny that they are in fact subject to the juris- 
diction of the Commissioner simply because they are in 
fact a corporation and therefore not legally competent 
to practice law. 

4. Same — Rules of Evidence — Sufficiency of 

Proof. 

In proceedings under a rule to show cause why an 
attorney should not be disbarred, it is not necessary that 
the rules of evidence applicable in criminal proceedings 
be strictly observed, such proceeding being in its nature 
civil. {Ex parte Wall., 107 U. S. 265.) Nor is it neces- 
sary in proceedings of this nature that offenses be proved 
beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if the investi- 
gation be conducted with fairness and the respondents be 
afforded ample opportunity to explain the transactions on 
which the charges were based and to vindicate their con- 
duct in reference thereto. Randall v. Bingham, 7 Wall., 
523. 

5. Same — Failure of Respondent to Appear in 

His Own Behalf. 

Since disbarment proceedings in this Office are not 
quasi criminal in character, the failure of a respondent in 
such proceedings to appear and testify in his own behalf, 



210 APPENDIX 

as well as his failure to exhibit to the inspection of the 
Office the organization and details of his business, may 
properly be made subjects for consideration in arriving 
at a conclusion. 

6. Same — Duty of an Attokney to Explain Peac- 

TicES Charged to Involve Gross Misconduct. 
When an attorney is charged with dishonest practices 
before this Office, since the character of such practices is 
peculiarly within his own knowledge, it is not only com- 
petent for him to testify concerning them, but it is his 
duty to himself, to the Patent Office, and to the public 
to show, if he can, that such practices are legitimate and 
proper. 

7. Same — Proper Subjects of Inquiry. 

The methods employed by the respondent corpo- 
ration in gathering in for prosecution applications for 
patent, the methods employed by the corporation in mak- 
ing searches on inventions, the correspondence carried 
on with clients, the methods employed for securing fees 
from clients for foreign patents, for advertising inventions 
for sale, for appealing rejected applications, in general the 
methods employed to get money from clients, may be 
inquired into by the Commissioner, not only as bearing 
on the fitness of J. W. to continue in practice, but as 
bearing on the fitness of the corporation to continue in 
practice, either directly or through its agent. It is im- 
possible in this inquiry to separate the president of the 
corporation from the corporation of which he is president. 

8. Same — Responsibility of a Corporation for 

Acts of an Agent in Professional Matters. 
It appearing that while applications for patent were 
filed in the name of J. W. as attorney, all correspondence 
with clients was carried on in the name of the corporation 



APPENDIX 211 

J. W. & Co., J. W. being the president thereof, J. W. is to 
be considered as merely the agent of the corporation and 
the corporation must and should be held responsible for 
his acts. 

9. Same — Practitioners — Presumption as to Re- 
sponsibility, 

The name of J. W. having appeared continuously since 
1893 on papers filed in this Office, he cannot be presumed 
to be ignorant of the requirements of attorneys or agents 
practicing before this Office. As president of the corpora- 
tion he must be held to have been cognizant of and respon- 
sible for whatever has been done by the corporation or its 
employees. 

10. The Public Should be Protected in the Trans- 

action OF Business with the Departments. 

If it were permissible that a solicitor might falsely and 
deceitfully obtain business from clients, might utilize the 
offer of the Government to grant patents in order to 
defraud citizens, might advise the public falsely that 
advice would be given free, and might fraudulently induce 
clients to intrust the prosecution of claims to him with- 
out notice of such things being taken by the head of the 
proper Department, the result would be the organization 
of combines of confidence men to plunder the public. It 
is the duty of the head of each Department to protect 
the public in its relation to such Department. 

11. Disbarment Proceedings — Strictness Required 

in the Investigation of Dishonest Practices. 

When the evil results of the business methods of a 
practitioner have effected great injury upon the Patent 
Office and have placed the practice before this Bureau 
upon a low moral plane, if the result of dealing with such 
practices slightingly would be to make the Office an 



212 APPENDIX 

apologist therefor, and a participant in reprehensible con- 
duct, and thus bring the Government and its administra- 
tion into contempt, strict dealing mil be observed in any 
investigation concerning such methods. 

12. Advertisements, Misrepresentation by. 

An advertisement of an ''$1,800 prize offer," when the 
largest prize actually paid was $150, was false and mis- 
leading, and was known to be so by the respondents. 
Whether it called for expenditure on the part of anyone 
is not material. It was misrepresentation for a purpose, 
that purpose being to secure the name and address of 
would-be patentees in order to secure fees from them. 

13. Notice of Patents Procured — Deceptive. 

A notice that the number of patents procured in a cer- 
tain week was 391 and that 124 were sold, when stamped 
on a letter-head which stated the business of the respon- 
dents to be the soliciting of patents and the sale of patents. 
Held to have been intended as a statement of the number 
of patents procured that week by the respondents and 
the number of patents sold by them, and is deceptive and 
misleading. 

14. Competition for Prizes — Unfair Competition. 
A prize competition open only to those who have paid 

money to the respondents clearly has nothing philanthropic 
or generous about it, is not intended for broadly stimu- 
lating invention, but is intended solely to boom respon- 
dents' business. It is necessary to a fair competition 
that the jury or board of awards should be impartial, dis- 
interested men, competent to decide on the merits, and 
it is also necessary that such jury or board should see and 
examine the invention submitted. To permit the merit 
of inventions to be finally passed upon by inexperienced 
and incompetent searchers is to make the competition 
a mere farce and a fraud. 



APPENDIX 213 

15. Simple Inventions — Misrepresentation — Gross 

Misconduct. 

To encourage would-be patentees to believe there is a 
great demand for the most simple inventions when in 
fact there is no such demand, to endeavor to impress 
upon the public a false and exaggerated idea of the value 
of simple inventions, to induce ignorant persons to be- 
lieve that old and well-tried fields of invention are new 
and untried fields in which inventions of value can be 
readily made by them, all for the purpose of inducing the 
payment of fees for searches and for other purposes, is 
demoralizing and deceptive and amounts to gross mis- 
conduct. 

16. Same — Deceptive Statements as to the Value 

OF. 

While it is true that some simple inventions which 
required little thought and little knowledge of the prior 
art on the part of the inventor have proved of value, such 
is not usually the case. The valuable inventions are 
those which are the result of hard work, careful study, 
and experiment by those who have familiarized them- 
selves with what others have done and with the real needs 
of the art. Further, it is only those simple inventions 
which are broadly new which are of any considerable value. 
Hence efforts on the part of parties representing them- 
selves to be attorneys to create in the public mind an 
impression to a contrary effect are in the nature of fraud 
— are misleading. 

17. Advice as to Patentability and Salability — 

Deceptive. 

An offer to advise free as to patentability and salability 
of any device, a supposed inventor who had failed to 
respond to J. W. & Co.'s first letter with its accompany- 



214 APPENDIX 

ing papers, in view of the fact that the advice given was 
a mere statement that the device was of a patentable 
nature, but to determine its patentabiUty a search at a 
cost of S5 would have to be made, and a statement that 
a successful device of this nature if patented immediately 
and properly handled would net its owner not less than 
so many thousand dollars, is deceptive and a mere trick 
to reopen correspondence ^dth the inventor to lead him 
on to send fees to J. W. & Co. 

18. Valuations of Inventions — Misleading Esti- 

mates. 

The fact that the expert chief of the sales department of 
J. W. & Co. placed values on inventions at sight, sometimes 
without even sight of the invention or even full descrip- 
tion of it — Tvdthout study of the invention, ^dthout in- 
quiry as to its novelty, and without consultation of books 
— such valuation being a mere offhand opinion on which 
neither he nor any other person could have passed intelli- 
gent judgment without careful study and full knowledge 
of all material facts ; the fact that this expert never failed 
to place a substantial value on every device submitted to 
him; the fact that this expert was one of the incorporators 
of J. W. & Co., and for a time one of its officers, all show 
that it was intended that all inventions should be reported 
to their clients as of very considerable value, without 
regard to their novelty or real value. 

19. Same — Same. 

The scheme as carried out by J. W. & Co., of placing 
a valuation on inventions before their novelty was even 
looked into, is deceptive and fraudulent on its face. It 
is utterly indefensible and clearly amounts to gross mis- 
conduct. The sending of a false valuation in a single 
case known to be, or which should be known to be, with- 



APPENDIX 215 

out value, where by reason of such valuation the inventor 
might be induced to part with a sum of money, indicates, 
at least, gross negligence. To make a practice of sending 
out false valuations indicates deliberate purpose. 

20. Preliminary Search — Proper Search. 

In order to disclose references that may exist in the 
records of the Patent Office which are accessible to the 
public, it is necessary that the search be made by a com- 
petent person skilled in this line of work, able to recog- 
nize a reference when he sees it, that this expert searcher 
take sufficient time to fully understand the invention on 
which he is making the search, and that he take sufficient 
time to make a thorough and complete examination of all 
classes of invention that may reasonably be supposed to 
have any bearing upon the invention. 

21. Same — When Report of Searcher Should be 

Accepted by Attorney. 

An attorney is not justified in reporting that a thor- 
ough examination of the records has been made and no 
reference found, unless such examination has been made 
by a competent searcher and in a thorough and careful 
manner, nor is he justified in accepting the favorable 
report of an inexperienced or incompetent searcher or 
the favorable report of even an experienced and competent 
searcher unless that searcher has had sufficient time within 
which to make a complete search. 

22. Same — Same — Duty of Attorney — Close Ref- 

erences Should be Cited. 

It is the duty of an attorney to report the result of a 
search fully and correctly to the inventor. A false and 
misleading report upon a search is as grossly deceptive 
as such a report would be if no search had been made. 
When references exist which approach the invention so 



216 APPENDIX 

closely as to throw doubt on the advisability of taking out 
a patent, they should be called to the inventor's atten- 
tion, even though they do not completely anticipate. 

23. Same — Crude Character of Inventions Gath- 

ered IN BY Respondents. 

That an insufficient number of searchers, many of 
them inexperienced and some of them incompetent, were 
able in two years to find anticipating references in 20,000 
cases shows the supposed inventions gathered in by the 
respondents through their advertisements and their 
pamphlets and papers to be merely conceptions of a 
crude character. It shows that large numbers of per- 
sons were falsely induced by the respondents to believe 
themselves inventors and were led to send fees to the 
respondents. 

24. Same — Same — Failure to Revise Reports of 

Unskilled Searchers. 

The failure to revise the favorable reports of unskilled 
searchers indicates reckless disregard of the rights of 
clients, indifference to the agreement as to the character 
of the search, and intended fraud. It was the duty of 
respondents to have had reports made under such cir- 
cumstances revised. 

25. Same — Same — Responsibility for Improper 

Searches. 

The respondents were bound by their agreement with 
their clients to have searches made properly. Their fail- 
ure to do so is gross and inexcusable negligence. They 
must be held responsible for the acts of their employees 
in maldng these searches, particularly as the system 
under which the searchers worked was of respondents' 
creation. 



APPENDIX 217 

26. Same — Same — Fra-udulent Reports — Gross 

Misconduct. 

The sending of favorable reports by personal direction 
of J. W. in cases in which references had been found by 
searchers without waiting to obtain copies of these refer- 
ences was nothing less than a deliberate fraud upon the 
clients and amounts to gross misconduct. 

27. Same — Report of Search — Deceptive and Mis- 

leading Report — Gross Misconduct. 

A report of search which, while citing an anticipating 
reference, included a request to send on money for fees 
and a promise, on receipt of fees, to prepare the necessary 
application papers and an offer to find a purchaser, is 
not an unfavorable report and was not intended to be 
understood by the client as an unfavorable report. It is 
upon its face a deceptive and fraudulent report. It was 
intended to deceive and mislead the client. Its use, fol- 
lowed up by the acceptance of fees for the preparation of 
application papers, is clearly gross misconduct. 

28. Attorneys — Applications for Inventions Known 

TO BE Unpatentable — Duty of Attorneys 
Toward Clients and Patent Office. 

It is perhaps an open question whether an attorney 
may properly file an application for patent for an inven- 
tion which he believes to be unpatentable. If it is cer- 
tain that the invention is not patentable, the attorney 
in filing such an application is false to his client and false 
in his duty toward the office. It is the duty of an attorney 
to assist the Patent Office in doing justice toward his 
client and justice toward the public. He cannot be a 
party to an attempt to secure a patent for what he knows 
to be old any more than he can permit the office to refuse 
to his client the protection to which he is entitled. 



218 APPENDIX 

29. Same — Duty of Attorneys to Clients — Gross 

Misconduct. 

When an attorney believes an invention to be unpatent- 
able, he should not file an application therefor without 
the express direction of the client, given after the reasons 
why the invention is beheved unpatentable have been 
fully and clearly laid before him. To deceive the client 
as to facts which negative patentabiUty, or by failure to 
clearly and definitely state the facts to allow the client 
to deceive himself as to such facts, is gross misconduct. 

30. Same — Selling Patents. 

The propriety of an attorney or solicitor of patents 
combining the business of soliciting with that of selling 
patents is questionable. Doubtless it may be done 
honestly; but propositions for undertaking the sale of 
inventions which require the payment of a fee in cash in 
advance are justly condemned. 

31. Same — Advice Respecting Foreign Patents. 

Advice to take out foreign patents should be given to 
clients only in those cases in which it is clear that such 
patents will be of advantage to the clients. In cases in 
which the invention is not patentable the advice to take 
out foreign patents presents a plain case of attempt to 
defraud the client for the benefit of the attorney. That 
this is gross misconduct is not open to question. 

32. Same — Concealment of Facts from Client. 

Studious concealment from the client of the true con- 
dition of his case, or positive misrepresentation of the 
condition of the case, in each instance representing the 
condition of the case more favorably than the facts justi- 
fied, while at the same time the attorney is urging the 
taking out of foreign patents or the payment of fees to 



APPENDIX 219 

the attorney for advertising the invention for sale, is 
gross misconduct. 

33. Same — Information to Client — Fraud. 

An attorney is bound to inform his chent of such steps 
in the progress of the case as he should know, and he 
should at least tell the truth and treat his client with 
candor when he does inform or advise him in regard to 
his case. If he does not do so, and is at the same time 
urging further expenditure of money for purposes which 
he knows cannot result in advantage to the client, his 
misrepresentation of the condition of the case is conclusive 
evidence of fraud. 

34. Same — Duty of Attorney in Appeal Cases. 

A letter merely stating to a client that his application 
is finally rejected and the only course open is to appeal 
without explanation of the references, information as to 
the grounds of the rejection, or advice as to the wisdom 
of appealing, such as a capable and honest attorney is 
bound to give to his client, is not such a letter as in fairness 
and justice to clients, should be written. 

35. Same — Same — Gross Misconduct. 

An attorney is employed because he is of greater skill 
and experience in prosecuting applications than his client. 
He is bound to give his client the advantage of his skill 
and experience. When he not only fails to do so, but 
omits that duty for an unworthy purpose, he is guilty of 
gross misconduct. At so critical a period in the case as 
that at which the question of appeal has to be considered, 
the client is entitled to the best information and the best 
judgment of the attorney. 

36. Same — Same — Same 

For persons who represent themselves to be attorneys 
of experience in practice and skilled in patent matters to 



220 APPENDIX 

accept appeal fees in cases in which they knew there was 
nothing patentable and appeal would be useless, without 
hesitation or explanation, purposely keeping the client 
in ignorance of the true significance of the examiner's 
rejection and thus misleading them as to the possibiHty of 
favorable action on appeal, is gross misconduct. 

37. Same — Same — Gross Negligence. 

An attorney who after repeated assurances to his client 
that he would do his best on the appeal, fails to appear 
to argue the case orally and fails to even file a written 
brief, is guilty of gross negligence. 

38. The Award of Silver Medals for Unpatentable 

Inventions — Gross Misconduct. 

To award an inventor a silver medal and to state to 
him that his invention is of special merit and promises 
to be exceedingly profitable, when the invention is known 
to be unpatentable and therefore worthless, and to subse- 
quently accept fees for the preparation of an application 
therefor, shows that the medal was sent intentionally 
and for a definite purpose and such award is deceptive 
and fraudulent and amounts to gross misconduct. 

39. The Award of Silver Medals — Gross Deception. 

Even if the silver medals had been sent only in those 
cases on which favorable reports had been made by the 
searchers, the fact that such medals, together with the 
accompanying award-letter, were sent in 11,000 cases 
shows that many inventors whose inventions were in no 
sense remarkable, in no sense valuable, and in no sense 
such as would be selected by any competent or honest 
board of awards, received these medals, and that the 
respondents in sending medals in these cases were guilty 
of grossly deceiving a large number of their clients. 



APPENDIX 221 

40. Retention of Excess of Fees, Dishonest. 

It appearing that in each of twenty cases $5 more than 
the fees agreed on was asked for and paid to the respon- 
dents and not returned by them, Held that this excess 
could not have been called for by mistake, and it is not 
seen that the retention of this excess is anything less than 
petty cheating. 

41. Duplicate Applications — When It Is Improper 

TO File. 

An attorney who files several successive applications for 
the same unpatentable invention, in behalf of different 
clients to whom he has successively reported such inven- 
tion patentable, is either grossly negligent or has committed 
a grave offense against law and morals. 

42. Applications Filed by Respondents — Deceptive 

Statements. 

In view of the fact that only a little over fifty per cent 
of the applications filed by the respondents have been 
found to contain allowable claims, the assurance made 
by them to their clients that ''it is extremely rare that a 
patent is refused on an invention which we report new 
and patentable," is obviously a falsehood promulgated 
to deceive the unwary. 

43. Charges against Respondents Sustained. 

There can be no doubt that the facts brought out in 
the record fully sustain the charges, with one exception, 
and show that respondents carried out in their practice 
a skillfully planned scheme of deception, misleading and 
defrauding thousands of would-be inventors out of hun- 
dreds of thousands of dollars, and have used, to further 
their scheme, the offices of the Government and its postal 
facilities. 



222 APPENDIX 

44. Duty of Patent Office as to Recognition of 

Attorneys or Agents. 
The Patent Office cannot, ^\dthout bringing lasting re- 
proacti upon itself, permit the continuance of such delib- 
erate and systematic deception of inventors as has been 
practiced by respondents. The duty of the Patent Office 
to inventors and the public demands that the respondents 
be no longer permitted to be recognized as patent attor- 
neys or agents. 

45. Responsibility of Employees of a Dishonest 

Attorney. 
Persons in the employ of an attorney who has been 
engaged in fraudulent practices when, being in responsible 
positions, they have cooperated and assisted in carr^^ing 
forward such practices, and when in \dew of prior experi- 
ence, such persons must be presumed to have been aware 
of the nefarious nature of such practices, must be held 
to be sharers in his guilt and with him be held unfit to 
practice before this Office. 

DECISIONS CONCERNING INFRINGEMENTS 
Compiled, abridged, and selected from various sources.* 

1. Three Rights. 

The owner of a valid patent secures, by \drtue thereof, 
three substantive rights: the right to make, the right to 
sell, and the right to use the patented article. He who 
invades any one of these rights is an infringer. Birdsell v. 
Shaliol, 112 U. S. 485. 

2. Manufacture. 

The prohibition against making is as applicable to ma- 
chines as to the composition of matter. It is an infringe- 

* Bound Decision Volumes, Patent Office Gazette, Periodicals — 
particularly Popular Electricity/ and Inventive Age. 

I O. C. Billman 1910-11. 



APPENDIX 223 

ment to make for use, although the invention is not used, 
or is not used by the maker; or to make for sale, though 
no sale is actually effected; or to make for sale abroad. 
Butz Thermo-Electric Regulator Co. v. Jacobs Electric 
Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 191; Haselden v. Ogden 3 Fish. Pat. 
Cas. 378, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6, 190; Bloomer v. Gilpin, 
4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1558; Ketchum 
Harvester Co. v, Johnson Harvester Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 586. 

3. Sale. 

The sale after the expiration of a patent of an article 
illegally manufactured while the patent was in force is 
an infringement. American Diamond Rock Boring Co. 
V. Sheldon, 1 Fed. Rep. 870. 

4. Unauthorized Use. 

The unauthorized use of a patented invention is an 
infringement even though it was made by a third person. 
Breshnahan v. Tripp Giant Leveller Co. (C. C. A.), 102 
Fed. Rep. 899. 

5. International Relation. 

It is an infringement to sell in the United States a 
patented article purchased in a foreign country from one 
not claiming under the United States patentee, even 
though the purchase was made from a person authorized 
to sell in such foreign country. Boesch v. Graff, 133 U. S. 
697. But the sale in the United States of an article pur- 
chased abroad from the United States patentee is not an 
infringement, unless the purchase was coupled with a re- 
striction forbidding use or sale in the United States. Dick- 
erson v. Matheson (C. C. A.), 57 Fed. Rep. 524, affirming 
50 Fed. Rep. 73. 

6. Process and Product. 

A patent for a machine or process alone is not violated 
by a sale of the product of an infringing machine or proc- 



224 APPENDIX 

ess (Welsbach Light Co. v. Union Incandescent Light 
Co. (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. Rep. 131), nor does the sale of a 
device infringe a patent for its use. 

7. Principle. 

If the principle of an invention is pirated, there is an 
infringement. Page v. Ferry, Fed. Cases, No. 3124. 

8. Warning. 

Owners of patents may lawfully warn others against 
infringement and by means of circulars or letters dis- 
tributed among agents and customers of a manufacturer 
give notice of his rights and intention to enforce them, 
when done in good faith. Farquhar Co. v. Natl. Harrow 
Co., 93 0. G. 192. 

9. Requisites for Decree. 

A single instance of using the patented improvement 
amounts to infringement and entitles complainant to 
a decree. American Wood Paper Co. v. Fibre Disin- 
tegrating Co., 23 Wall 566. 

10. Experimental Use. 

The experimental making or using of a patented inven- 
tion for the sole purpose of gratifying curiosity or a philo- 
sophical taste, or for mere amusement, is not an infringe- 
ment. Bonsack Machine Co. v. Underwood, 73 Fed. 
Rep. 206. This rule, however, cannot be invoked for the 
protection of one who uses a patented invention in the 
ordinary course of his business, or who derives a profit 
from the result of its so-called experimental use. (Frear- 
son V. Loe 9 Ch. D. 48; Poppenhusen v. New York Gutta- 
percha Comb Co. 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 62, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 
11,283), even though the patentee has publicly offered to 
sell licenses. Indeed, if the use is of advantage to the 
user, it need not necessarily be profitable in order to fall 



APPENDIX 225 

without the rule permitting experimental use. United 
Telephone Co. v. Sharpies, 29 Ch. D. 164. 

11. Renewal of Patented Part. 

A part which, although necessary to the operation of a 
machine, is temporary in its relation to the whole struc- 
ture, and which the inventor contemplated would have 
to be renewed at intervals, may be replaced (Morgan 
Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co., 
152 U. S. 425), even though it is novel, and covered by 
the claims of the patent. Farrington v. Board of Water 
Commissioners, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 216, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 
4687. 

12. Same — Exception. 

The purchaser of the parts of a patented article which 
has been taken to pieces has no right to reconstruct and 
use or sell the article. American Cottontie Co. v. Sim- 
mons, 106 U. S. 89. 

13. Requisites for Injunction. 

Mere possession, when unlawful, may be sufficient to 
justify an injunction restraining use, whether or not it 
affords ground for damages. Adair v. Young, 12 Ch. D. 

14. Repairs. 

Where a machine is patented as a whole, one who has 
the right to use, but not the right to construct, may, so 
long as the identity of the machine is not destroyed, make 
repairs or replace the worn-out parts, but can neither 
build a new machine, nor reconstruct an old one under 
the guise of repairs. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. 
Kelsey Electric Specialty Co. (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. Rep. 100. 

15. Use Not Necessary. 

It is an infringement to manufacture a patented article, 
though it is never used by the maker, or to use a patented 



226 APPENDIX 

article, though made by another, or to sell to others the 
article manufactured by another. Haselden v. Ogden, 
Fed. Cases, No. 6190. 

16. CONTKIBUTORY INFRINGER. 

A person is liable as a contributory infringer when, with- 
out authority, he makes or sells an element or ingredient 
of a patented combination with the intent that it shall be 
combined with the other elements or ingredients for the 
purpose of infringing the patent, or with the knowledge 
that it will be so used. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. 
V. Ohio Brass Co. (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. Rep. 712. 

17. Same — Sale or Use. 

The same rule applies to the unauthorized sale of appli- 
ances or materials for the unlawful use of a patented 
process, and to the unauthorized sale of machinery which 
is useful only for making a patented article. Loew Filter 
Co. V. German American Filter Co. (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. 
Rep. 949; American Graphophone Co. v. Hawthorne, 
92 Fed. Rep. 516. 

18. Knowledge Necessary. 

The sale of unpatented articles is not rendered an in- 
fringement by the mere fact that they are intended to be 
used in effecting the purpose of a patented device. Such 
a sale becomes an infringement, however, when made 
with knowledge of a restriction imposed by the patentee 
that such article may be used in connection with his 
patented machine only when purchased from him. Hea- 
ton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. 
Rep. 288. 

19. Mechanical Equivalent. 

When in mechanics one device does a particular thing 
or accomplishes a particular result, every other device 
known and used in mechanics which experienced and skill- 



APPENDIX 227 

ful workmen know (without the exercise of the inventive 
faculty) will produce the same result or do the same par- 
ticular thing, is a known mechanical equivalent for the 
first device, although the first may never have been de- 
tached from its work and the second put in its place. 
May V. Fond du Lac County, 27 Fed. Rep. 691. 

20. Substantial Equivalent. 

For the purpose of determining the question of in- 
fringement the substantial equivalent of a thing is re- 
garded as the same as the thing itself. Union Paper Bag 
Mach. Co. V. Murphy, 97 U. S. 120. 

21. Actual Use Not Necessary. 

It constitutes an infringement to manufacture for the 
purpose of use, even if not actually used. Butz Thermo- 
Electric Regulator Co. v. Jacobs Electric Co., 36 Fed. 197. 

22. Equivalents. 

All equivalents are covered by the patent. Clough v. 
Barker, 106 U. S. 176. 

23. Substantial Adoption Sufficient. 

To infringe a patent, it is not necessary that the thing 
patented should be adopted in every particular. If the 
patent is adopted substantially by the defendant, he is 
guilty of infringement. Sewall v. Jones, 91 U. S. 171. 

24. Chemical Equivalent. 

A chemical equivalent of a substance is another sub- 
stance having similar properties and producing sub- 
stantially the same effect. 

25. The Claim Considered. 

The claim is the measure of the patentee's rights, and 
what is not claimed is not patented. Pitts v. Wemple, 
1 Bhss (U. S.) 87; Corn Planter Patent, 23 Wall (U. S.) 
181; Brush Electric Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 834, 



228 APPENDIX 

26. Equivalents Understood. 

As an inventor is always entitled to equivalents their 
introduction in a claim is an unnecessary intrusion. Ex 
parte Reid, 15 0. G. 882. 

27. Claims Construed. 

The several claims of a patent should be so construed 
that each may represent distinct inventions. Cohansey 
Glass Mfg. Co. V. Wharton, 36 0. G. 343. 

28. Ignorance — Lack of Intent. 

The motive or intent with which an act of infringement 
is committed is immaterial, and that a person may infringe 
a patent without even knowing of its existence. Matthews 
V. Skates, 1 Fish Pat. Cas. 602, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9291. 

29. Patentee Limited to What is Stated and 

Claimed. 

When the language of the specification and claim shows 
what the patentee desires to secure as a monopoly, noth- 
ing can be held an infringement that does not fall within 
the terms which he has thus chosen to express his inven- 
tion. Chemical Rubber Co. v. Raymond Rubber Co., 
68 Fed. Rep. 570. But an immaterial change made for 
the sole purpose of avoiding the exact wording of the 
claim "svill not avail to avoid infringement. Westing- 
house V. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537. 

30. Use of Part of Patent. 

Except where the patent covers merely a particular 
combination of elements, it is an infringement to use any 
part of the invention embraced within the patent. Union 
Sugar Refinery v. Mathiesson, 3 Chff (U. S.) 639, 2 Fish. 
Pat. Cas. 600, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,399. So also when a 
patent covers several new and independent machines 
working to a common end; the use of one alone is an 



APPENDIX 229 

infriiigement (Wilkins Shoe Button Fastener Co. v. 
Webb, 89 Fed. Rep. 982), although each is capable of 
independent use. Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story (U. S.) 
273. 

31. Colorable Evasion of Patent. 

The unauthorized application of a patented machine 
or device, or a colorable evasion thereof, to a new use, 
without varying the principle or means, is an infringement. 
Cincinnati Ice Machine Co. v. Foss-Schneider Brewing 
Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 469. 

32. Same — Change in Form, Shape, Etc. 

When the substance of a patented invention is taken, 
and the patentee is not limited by his claim, or otherwise, 
to any particular form of construction, infringement is 
not avoided by mere change in the form of the infringing 
device or of the parts thereof, not resulting in the pro- 
duction of any new and useful result, such changes being 
merely colorable and evasive. Westinghouse v. Boyden 
Power Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537; National Hollow-Brake 
Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co. (C. C. A.), 
106 Fed. Rep. 693. This rule apphes to differences in 
appearance, name, shape, proportions, dimensions, and to 
mere structural differences generally. Union Paper Bag 
Mach. Co. V. Murphy, 97 U. S. 120. 

33. Same — Exceptions. 

Even a slight change of form will avoid infringement, 
when form is the essence of the invention (Ball, etc.. 
Fastener Co. v. Ball Glove Fastener Co. (C. C. A.), 
60 Fed. Rep. 399), or when the patentee is entitled to 
protection only for the precise form described in his claim. 
Lewis V. Pennsylvania Steel Co. (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. Rep 
129. 



230 APPENDIX 

34. Use of Patented Impro^t:ment by Original 

Patentee. 

A prior patentee is not entitled to use a patented im- 
provement of his invention without the consent of the 
patentee thereof. Bowers v. Pacific Coast Dredging, 
etc., Co., 99 Fed. Rep. 745. 

35. Same — IMerit Xot Considered. 

The comparative utihty of two machines or processes 
is not an absolute test of infringement; nor does compar- 
ative superiority or inferiority necessarily import nonin- 
fringement. Cro^-n Cork, etc., Co. v. Aluminum Stopper 
Co. (C. C. A.), 108 Fed. Rep. 845. 

36. Changes to Avoid Infringe^ient. 

A combination which substantially embodies the prin- 
ciple of a prior patented combination and employs all 
the elements thereof for the accomphshment of the same 
result, in the same manner, is an infringement, notwith- 
standing formal or colorable changes. Lake Shore, etc., 
R. Co. V. National Car Brake Shoe Co., 110 U. S. 229; 
Heat on Peninsula Button Fastener Co. r. Elhott Button 
Fastener Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 220. This rule, however, is 
subject to the limitation that a patent which is limited to 
be a specific combination or arrangement of old elements 
is not infringed by a different combination or arrange- 
ment of the same elements. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall 
(U. S.) 516; Balance, etc., ^Ifg. Co. v. Haberman IMfg. 
Co., 54 Fed. Rep. 517. In any event, a substantially 
different combination is one which cUffers substantially 
in construction, mode of operation, and result does not 
infringe. Adams Electric R. Co. v. Lindell R. Co. 
(C. C. A.), 77 Fed. Rep. 432; Electric Railroad Signal 
Co. V, Hall Railroad Signal Co., 114 U. S. 102; Smith v. 



APPENDIX 231 

Fay, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 446, 22 Fed. Rep. Cas. No. 
13,045. 

37. When a patent is sustainable only as for a combina- 
tion of elements or ingredients, either because the invention 
consists merely of a new combination of old parts or be- 
cause the patentee claimed the combination and nothing 
more as his invention, it is not infringed by a subsequent 
combination which omits one or more elements essential 
to the integrity of the patented combination or claimed 
by the patentee as material, without substituting known 
equivalents therefor, even though the later combination 
produces the same result. Smith v. Fay, 6 Fish. Pat. 
Cas. 446, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,045; Dudley E. Jones Co. 
V. Munger National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Inter- 
changeable Brake Beam Co. (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. Rep. 693. 
The omission of an element claimed as material avoids the 
charge of infringement, even though it is in fact immate- 
rial or unnecessary (Consolidated Roller Mill Co. v. 
Coombes, 39 Fed. Rep. 25; Kinzel v. Luttrell Brick Co. 
(C. C. A.), 67 Fed. Rep. 926), but the omission of an im- 
material element not claimed as material does not. Mast 
V. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. Rep. 327. 

38. Infkingement of Patented Part. 

When a part of a combination is new, and is claimed by 
the patentee as his invention, aside from his claim of the 
combination, its use without the rest of the combination 
is an infringement. Moody v. Fisks, 2 Mason (U. S.) 
112, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9745; Adair v. Thayer, 4 Fed. 
Rep. 441. 

39. Use of Equivalents. 

A patent for a combination is infringed by the use of 
some of the elements of the combination, and the substi- 
tution of known equivalents for those omitted. National 



232 APPENDIX 

Cash Register Co. v. Boston Cash Indicator, etc. Co., 
156 U. S. 502; Standard Folding Bed Co. v. Osgood 
(C. C. A.), 58 Fed. Rep. 583. But infringement is avoided 
when the elements substituted for the omitted elements 
are substantially different or are new, or, if old, were not 
known at the date of the patent as proper substitutes for 
the omitted elements. Bavey Pegging IMachine Co. v. 
Prouty (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. Rep. 505; Fuller v. Yentser, 
94 U. S. 288; Webster v. New Brunswick Carpet Co., 1 B. 
& A. Pat. Cas. 84. 

40. Same — Composition Patent. 

A patent for a composition of matter is infringed by a 
subsequent composition which is substantially similar — 
that is, which contains substantially the same ingredients 
operating in the same manner, and accomplishing the 
same result — even though it may be slightly or color- 
ably different. Matthews v. Skates, 356, 1 Fish. Pat. 
Cas. 602, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9291; Ready Roofing Co. v. 
Taylor, 15 Blatchf (U. S.) 95, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,613. 
But where the differences are substantial, there is no in- 
fringement. Goodyear v. Berry, 2 Bond (U. S.) 189, 
3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 439, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5566. 

41. Same — Exception. 

A composition which omits one or more of the essential 
ingredients of the patented composition does not in- 
fringe. Smith V. Murray, 27 Fed. Rep. 69; Otley v. 
Watkms, 36 Fed. Rep. 323. 

42. Territorial Grantee. 

A territorial grantee cannot be restricted from adver- 
tising and selling within his territory even though the 
purchasers may take the patented article outside the 
vendor's territory. Hatch v. Hall, 30 0. G. 1096. 



APPENDIX 233 

43. Contributory Infringement Etc. — A Recent 

Case. 

Henry et at. v. A. B. Dick Company 

(Supreme Court of the United States. March 11, 1912) 

Patents — Suit for Violation of Licenses — Jurisdiction 
of Federal Court. 

In determining whether a suit is one arising under the 
patent law and cognizable only in a court of the United 
States or one upon a contract between the patentee and 
his assignees or licensees and cognizable only in a State 
court unless there be diversity of citizenship the test of 
jurisdiction is: Does the complainant ^^set up some right, 
title or interest under the patent laws of the United 
States, or make it appear that some right or privilege will 
be defeated by one construction, or sustained by another, 
of those laws?" 

Same — Rights Thereunder. 

The property right in the materials composing a 
patented machine and the right to use for the purpose 
and in the manner pointed out by the patent are sepa- 
rable rights. 

Same — Same. 

The property right to a patented machine may pass to 
a purchaser with no right of use or with only the right of 
use in a specified way or at a specified place or for a spec- 
ified place or for a specified purpose. The unlimited 
right or exclusive use which is possessed by and guaranteed 
to the patentee will be granted if the sale be unconditional; 
but if the right of use be confined by specific restrictions 
the use not permitted is necessarily reserved to the 
patentee. 



234 APPENDIX 

Same — Same — Limitation Thereof. 

There are certain limitations upon the right of vending 
and using a patented machine. If the thing patented 
belongs to a class of things which on account of their 
inherent danger to the public safety or health cannot 
be sold or used because prohibited by an exertion of the 
police power of a State, they will not be immune to such 
law because patented. 

Same — Violation of Agreements — Infringement. 

Any reasonable stipulation not inherently violative of 
some substantive law imposed by a patentee as part of 
a sale of a patented machine is valid and enforcible. If 
the stipulation is one which qualifies the right of use in a 
machine sold subject thereto, so that a breach would give 
rise to a right of action upon the contract, it would at the 
same time be an act of infringement, giving to the patentee 
his choice of remedies. 

Same — Contributory Infringement — Definition. 

''Contributory infringement," says Judge Townsend in 
Thomson-Houston Co. v. Kelsey Co. (72 Fed. Rep., 1816), 
''has been well defined as the intentional aiding of one 
person by another in the unlawful making, or selling or 
using of the patented invention. 

Same — Same. 

Where a patented machine was sold by complainant 
with a license agreement that it was to be used only with 
ink made by complainant, and defendant, with knowledge 
of such license agreement, sold to the owner of such ma- 
chine ink not made by complainant, with the expectation 
that this ink was to be used in connection with such ma- 
chine. Held that the acts of defendant constituted con- 
tributory infringement of complainant's patent. 



APPENDIX 235 

DECISIONS AFFECTING THE RIGHTS OF PATENTEES 
Compiled, Abridged, and Selected 

1. Abandonment. 

Abandonment of the use of_a machine is not evidence 
that it is a mere abandoned experiment. Pickering v. 
McCoulough, 13 0. G. 818. 

2. Same — Inventions and Applications. 

There is a material difference between the abandonment 
of inventions and appUcations. The first gives the inven- 
tion to the pubUc and is irretrievable. In the second 
case the application may be renewed or a new application 
may be filed. Western Elec. Co. v. Sperry Elec. Co., 
65 0. G. 597. 

3. Same — Willful or Negligent Delay. 

An invention may become abandoned by a willful or 
negligent postponement of the assertion of the inventor's 
rights or by an attempt to withhold the benefit of his 
improvement from the public until a similar improvement 
is made and introduced by others. Ex parte Woodbridge, 
15 0. G. 564. 

4. Forfeiture. 

Forfeiture, even for two years after the allowance of a 
patent, does not per se forfeit applicant's right to apply 
for a patent on the same invention. Sibbald v. Cassidy, 
61 O. G. 1165. 

5. Renewal. 

A renewal application is, for purpose of interference, 
a continuation of the earlier application and takes its 
date. Duchemin v. Priester, 58 0. G. 1416. 



236 APPENDIX 

6. Abandoned Applications. 

Abandoned applications on file in the Patent Office are 
not open to public inspection. Ex parte Wyckoff, 59 0. G. 
1104. 

7. Same — When Revived. 

In order to re^vive an abandoned application unavoid- 
able delay covering the entire period of delay must be 
shown. Ex parte Heine, 64 O. G. 1006. 

8. Reissues. 

A reissue '^shall be for the same invention as the original 
patent as such invention appears from the specification 
and claims of such original." 

The lapse of two years wdll ordinarily be treated as 
evidence of an abandonment of the matter not originally 
clauned. Topliff v. Topliff, 59 0. G. 1257. 

9. Same — Enlaeged Claim. 

When an applicant has by 'inadvertence" claimed less 
than he was entitled to claim^ he may have a reissue with 
enlarged claims. Ex parte Stanley, 60 0. G. 735. 

10. Assignment Before Patent Allow^ed. 

Inventions may be assigned before they are patented. 
Cammeyer v. Newton, 11 0. G. 287. 

11. License Not Transferable. 

A license by a patentee to use his invention is personal 
and is not transferable to a third party. Eclipse Wind- 
mill Co. V. Woodmanse Co., 32 0. G. 1603. 

12. Assignment — Written Agreements. 

All interests in patents are assignable in writing. 
Campbell v. James, 18 0. G. 1111. 



APPENDIX 237 

13. Specification — Requirements. 

A specification may properly state in a brief form the 
present state of the art to which it relates, but may not 
argue the question of the superiority of this over other 
inventions for the purpose. 

Discussions and disparaging remarks as to the inven- 
tions of others are inadmissible. Ex parte Williams, 
C. D. 1872, p. 46. 

14. Same — Incompleteness. 

If it requires experiment and invention to make and 
use the matter described in a patent the patent is void. 
Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 16 0. G. 675. 

15. Same — Restriction. 

A statement that no one else has been able to accomplish 
a certain result is inadmissible in a specification. Ex 
parte Blakeman, 98 0. G. 791. 

16. Marking Articles. 

After application for a patent the article may be 
stamped ''patent applied for," and the word ''patented" 
may be affixed when the patent has been allowed but not 
issued. Schw^ebel v. Bothe, 40 Fed. Rep. 478; Lauferty 
V, Wheeler, 11 Daly (N. Y.) 194. 

17. Same — After Patent Expires. 

The manufacturer of a patented article can continue 
to affix to it the word "Patented," even after the patent 
has expired, without legal liability. Wilson v. Singer 
Mfg. Co., 9 Bhss. 173. 

18. Patent Rights. 

A patent is prima facie evidence that the patentee was 
the first and original inventor. Cushman v. Parham, 
C. D. 1876, p. 130. 



238 APPENDIX 

Patent rights extend throughout the United States and 
are not subject to seizure and sale on execution. Stevens 
V. Gladding, 17 How. 447. 

19. Same — Jurisdiction. 

"The right of property in letters patent exists by virtue 
of Federal laws exclusively, and one incident of such right 
is the right to sell the patent anj^'here within Federal juris- 
diction. Hence it has been declared that state statutes 
which impose conditions upon the sale of patents, as by 
requiring the patent to be registered, are unconstitutional 
and void. Such conditions are regarded as curtailing 
and nullifjang the Federal laws, and the imposition of 
punishment for noncompliance is an attempt to pimish 
the patentee for doing what Congress has authorized him 
to do." Ex 'parte Robinson, 4 Fish. Pat. Cases 186; 2 
Bliss (U.S.) 314, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,932; People v. 
Russel, 25 Pat. Off. Gaz. 504. 

'^Emphasis has been laid upon the distinction between 
control of the letters patent and control of the patented 
articles. It is general^ recognized that as properly 
patented articles are not under Federal jurisdiction, and 
may be subjected to control and taxation by the states, 
so far as such control is not repugnant to other recognized 
principles of law. " Pattersons. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501. 
State V. Bell Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 296. 

20. Restraining Publication of Discovery. 

The state court may, at the instance of the inventor 
or discoverer, restrain a person from divulging the secret 
of an unpatented device or improvement. Hammer v. 
Barnes (Supreme Court Spec. T.), 26 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 174. 



APPENDIX 239 

21. Joint Inventors — Mechanical Skill ^ — ^ Employer 

AND Employee. 
(Cogswell & Judson v. Burke, 1872.) Mechanical skill 
and professional knowledge may always be sought by 
inventors without jeopardizing their rights. In Gilbert 
V. Clarke, Bonzans and Griffin, 1874, where the relation 
of employer and employee was established between parties 
with reference to the embodiment of a new device sug- 
gested by the employer and communicated in its general 
outlines to the employee, who was consulted as a sldlled 
mechanic and who made suggestions of improvement in 
the details, which were adopted, it was held that the 
invention, as ultimately perfected, belonged to the em- 
ployer. 

So in Blandy v. Griffith, 3 Fisher, it was held that — 
''As long as the root of the original conception remains 
in its completeness, the outgrowth, whatever shape it 
may take, belongs to him with whom the invention origi- 
nated. " 

22. Same — Mechanical Skill. 

The emplojrment of mechanical skill to construct a ma- 
chine in accordance with ideas furnished by another gives 
no right to the invention. Yoder v. Mills, 34 O. G. 1048. 

23. Relation of Applicant and Commissioner. 

The law imposes upon the applicant the duty of look- 
ing after his own interests. The Commissioner and his 
subordinates are charged with the protection of the inter- 
ests of the public. Dunham v. Seymour, Com. of Pat., 
71 0. G. 601. 

24. The Government and the Inventor. 

The Government of the United States has no right to 
use a patented invention without compensation to the 
owner of a patent. James v. Campbell, 21 O. G. 337. 



240 APPENDIX 

25. Same — Employees. 

Government employees are entitled to their inventions. 
The Government can lay no claim to them. Riley v. 
Barnard, 59 0. G. 1919. 

26. Same — Absence of Agreement. 

When an employee of the Government makes an inven- 
tion he is entitled to a patent in the absence of an agree- 
ment on his part to the contrary. Solomons v. United 
States, 137 U. S. 342. 

27. Anticipation. 

Anticipation ought not to be found in prior devices in 
the art to which a patent belongs unless they are of such 
a character as to furnish clear, if not unmistakable, sug- 
gestion of the improvement in question, and if the antici- 
patory suggestion comes from another art, it should, of 
course, have less significance, proportioned inversely to 
the distance from which it is brought. Williams v. 
American, 86 Fed. 641, 30 C. C. A. 318. 

28. Same — Knowledge after the Fact. 

It should be borne in mind that this process was not 
one accidentally discovered, but was the result of a long 
search for the very purpose. The surprise is that the 
manufacturers of steel, having felt the want for so .many 
years, should never have discovered, from the multiplicity 
of patents and of processes introduced into this suit and 
well known to the manufacturers of steel, that it was but 
a step from what they already knew to that which they 
had spent years in endeavoring to find out. It only re- 
mains now for the wisdom which comes after the fact to 
teach us that Jones (the inventor) discovered nothing, 
invented nothing, accomplished nothing. Carnegie v. 
Cambria, 185, U. S. 403, 46 L. Ed. 968, 22 S. Ct. 698. 



APPENDIX 241 

29. Same — Machine. . 

A machine or combination which is not designed by its 
maker, nor actually used nor apparently adapted to per- 
form the function of a patented machine or combination 
but which is discovered in a remote art and was used under 
radically different conditions to perform another function, 
neither anticipates nor limits the scope of the patent. 

Where mechanical improvements have moved so fast 
as they have in the last half century, great caution is 
required in investigating alleged anticipations which date 
back nearly the whole of that period, and so far as they 
did not go into use so there was no practical exhibition 
of them, it is often difficult to determine whether they 
disclosed such full, clear, and exact terms as are neces- 
sary to anticipate. Judge Sanborn and Putnam in Na- 
tional V. Inter- American, 106 Fed. 693, 45 C. C. A. 544 and 
Draper v. American, 161 Fed. 728, 88 C. C. A. 588. 

30. Drawings. ' 

The object of the drawings filed m the Patent Office is 
attained if they clearly exhibit the principles involved, 
and, in a case like this, rigid adherence to the dimensions 
thus exhibited is not required or expected, and if the 
intelligent mechanic would so proportion the dimensions 
as to secure practical results, inutility is not demonstrated 
by experiments with material identical in form and pro- 
portion of parts with the drawings in the patent. 

The drawings are not required to be working plans, 
they must be read in connection with the description and 
claims, and any interference arising from omissions or 
inconsistencies in the drawings must yield to a legally 
sufficient specification. Crown v. Aluminum, 108 Fed. 
845, 48 C. C. A. 72. Western v. American, 131 Fed. 75, 
65 C. C. A. 313. 



242 APPENDIX 

31. Desckiption. 

In case of a claim for a combination, where all of the 
elements are old, and where the invention consists merely 
in the new combination of old elements or devices whereby 
a new and useful result is attained, such combination is 
sufficiently described if the elements or devices of which 
it is composed are all named and their mode of operation 
given, and the new and useful result to be accomplished 
pointed out, so that those skilled in the art and the public 
may know the extent and nature of the claims, and what 
the parts are which cooperate to produce the described 
new and useful result. Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. 
Ed. 68. 

SOME DECISIONS OF NOTE 
Selected and Abridged 

The present practice is reflected in these decisions and many 
important lessons may be learned from them. 

1. HuRD et al. V. Seim et al. 

(Circuit Court, N. D. New York, July 26, 1911. 

189 F. R., p. 591) 

Patents — Suit for Infringement — Intervention. 

In an infringement suit against users or dealers in the 
alleged infringing article, there is no ground for permitting 
intervention by the company from which defendants 
bought such articles where the defense which it seeks to 
set up is equally open to the defendants; such company 
having the right to assume or assist the defendants in 
making such defense without becoming a party. 

Patents — Suit for Infringement — Construction of Decree. 

In a decree entered by the Circuit Court of Appeals of 
the Second Circuit adjudging a patent valid and infringed, 
a provision excepting from the injunction restraining the 
defendant from selling infringing articles, such articles as 
were made by a company in Indiana, where in a suit 



APPENDIX 243 

against such company the patent had been held invahd, 
was not adjudication of defendant's right to sell such 
articles in the Second Circuit, but merely reserved that 
question until it should arise in a proper case. 

Patents — Infringement — Effect of Prior Adjudication. 

A patent was held valid and infringed by a Circuit 
Court in New York, and its decree was affirmed by the 
Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit and also 
by the Supreme Court. In a suit in Indiana against a 
manufacturer the patent had been held invalid, and the 
decree was not appealed from. Held, that such decree 
did not authorize the sale or use in New York or else- 
where in the Second Circuit of articles thereafter made 
by the defendant in that suit, which were clear infringe- 
ments of the patent. 

2. Perkins Electric Switch Mfg. Co. v. Yost 
Electric Mfg. Co. 

(Circuit Court, N. D. Ohio, W. D., Nov. 1, 1911. 
189 F. R., p. 625) 

Patents — Suit for Infringement — Accounting for Profits 
and Damages. 

Where the controversy between the parties to an in- 
fringement suit over a certain device, of which defendant 
had made only a small number and had discontinued 
before suit brought, involves no substantial amount in 
the way of damages or profits, an accounting will not be 
directed although infringement is found. 

Patents — Suit for Infringement — Division of Costs. 

Where a complaint alleged infringement by a number 
of devices made by defendant, but succeeded as to one 
only, a division of the costs of the trial court will not be 
made proportionate to the final result. 



244 APPENDIX 

3. Electric Rexovator ]^Ifg. Co. v. Vacuum 
Cleaner Co. et at. 

(Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania, Aug. 5, 1911. 
189F. R., p.'^756) 

Injunction — Grounds — Unfair Competition in Busi- 
ness — Threatening Suits. 

A defendant, who, after claiming that complainant was 
manufacturing articles infringing its patent, and being 
requested to bring suit to determine the question, instead 
of doing so, persistently and for nearly two years continued 
to send threatening letters and circulars to complainant's 
customers and persons who might become customers, 
but T\'ithout bringing suit against any, is chargeable with 
bad faith and unfair business methods, which entitle 
complainant to an injunction. 

4. Graff, Washbourne & Dunn v. Webster et al. 

(Circuit Court, E. D. New York, July 26, 1911. 
189 F. R., p. 902) 

Patents — Infringement — Designs. 

Whether a design infringes a design patent cannot be 
determined solely by looking to the elements or the de- 
tails in carrjdng out the parts of the design, but the test 
is whether or not the person desiring to obtain an article 
bearing the original design would be deceived or induced 
to purchase the imitation because of its similarity. 

Patents — Designs — Double Patenting. 

An inventor may patent a component detail of a design, 
and at the same time an arrangement of that design Tsdth 
the addition of a particular style of chasing, ^dthout either 
patent being open to attack as invalid for double patent- 
ing. 



APPENDIX 245 

5. Johnson v. Johnson 

(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey, Sept. 11, 1911. 
190 F. R., p. 28) 

Patents — Infringement — Improvement Patents. 

Where a patent sued on and one alleged to infringe are 
not pioneer patents and do not embody a primary in- 
vention, but are both only for improvements on the prior 
art, and defendant's machine can be differentiated, the 
charge of infringement cannot be maintained. 

6. HuRD et at. v. Woodward Co. 

(Circuit Court, N. D. New York, Sept. 11, 1911. 
190 F. R., p. 29) 

Patents — Suit for Infringement — Effect of Previous 
Conflicting Adjudications. 

While a decree of a Circuit Court in an infringement 
suit against the manufacturer of an alleged infringing 
article, holding the patent invalid, not appealed from, pro- 
tects the defendant therein from further suits for in- 
fringement of such patent, it affords no protection to its 
customers or purchasers from them of articles subsequently 
made by such defendant which infringe the patent, if 
valid, in vending or using the same, where its validity has 
been adjudicated by other decisions, affirmed by the 
Supreme Court of the United States. 

7. General Electric Co. v. E. H. Freeman 
Electric Co. 

(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey, May 15, 1911. 
190 F. R., p. 34) 

Patents — Construction — General and Specific Claims. 

Where a patent contains specific claims for the ona form 
of structure described in the specification and shown in the 



246 APPENDIX 

drawings, and also broad and general claims, the latter 
are not to be so limited as to make them a mere repetition 
of the specific claims. 

Patents — Invention — Efect of Similar Devices in Other 
Arts. 

Invention may exist in a patented device notwith- 
standing the existence of devices more or less similar 
in other arts. 

8. Combustion Utilities Corporation et al. v. 
Worcester Gas Light Co. 

(Circuit Court, D. ^Massachusetts, Aug. 8, 1911. 

Defendant's Petition for Rehearing, Aug. 

26, 1911. 190 F. R., p. 155) 

Patents — Validity — Theory of Operation. 

AMiatever may be the correctness of the theory of 
operation of a patentee if a new application of old means 
is sufficiently described to enable those skilled in the art 
to produce a new and useful result, it is enough to sus- 
tain the patent. 

9. Crown Cork & Seal Co. of Baltimore City 

V. Brooklyn Bottle Stopper Co. et al. Same 

V. A^iERicAN Cork Specialty Co. et al. 

Sa^ie v. Johnson 

(Circuit Court, E. D. New York, June 12, 1911. 
190 F. R., p. 323) 

Patents — Suit for Infringement — Parties. 

Individuals who organized a corporation vnth a small 
capital for the purpose of enabling them to infringe a 
patent through the corporation without subjecting them- 
selves to personal liability may be joined with the cor- 
poration as defendants in a suit for the infringement, 
and held jointly liable therefor. 



APPENDIX 247 

10. Kreplik v. Couch Patents Co. 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Oct. 3, 1911. 
190 F. R., p. 565) 

Patents — Infringement — Combinations. 

The inventive act in a combination patent is the mak- 
ing of the component parts, capable of combination and 
fit to be united to constitute the combination, and in- 
fringement of such a patent is complete when the com- 
ponent parts of the combination are made or sold fitted 
to be put together, and intended to be put together. 

11. Thomas A. Edison, Inc., v. Ira M. Smith 
Mercantile Co. 

(Circuit Court, W. D. Michigan, S. D., July 25, 1911. 
188 F. R., p. 925) 

Patents — Rights of Patentee — Price of Sale. 

A patentee may, by appropriate contract, reserve to 
himself control over the price or other conditions attend- 
ing the public enjoyment of the patented article. 

Patents — Patented Article — Sale — Restrictions. 

Where price restrictions and other conditions are im- 
posed by contract on the sale of a patented article, such 
restrictions will or will not be considered as running with 
the article, depending in each case on the transaction by 
which the patentee offered the article to the public for 
use; the right of use and resale being such only as might 
be normally appropriate to the article and implied from 
the circumstances of the original sale. 

Patents — Sale of Patented Article — Price Restrictions — • 
Injunction. 

Patented phonograph records were manufactured and 
sold under contracts authorizing jobbers and dealers to 
resell the same, provided that such resale should not be 



248 APPENDIX 

made except for a specified price, and that on any breach 
of the condition the Hcense to use and vend the record 
imphed from the purchase for sale immediately termi- 
nated. The stock of an authorized dealer in such records 
having been damaged by fire, it was abandoned to an 
insurance company which sold the stock to a salvage com- 
pany by which it was sold to defendant, some of the 
records being in the original cartons and others having 
been replaced in blank cartons. Held, that defendant 
having offered such records for sale at cut prices with 
knowledge of the restrictions under which they were 
originally sold was subject to an injunction restraining a 
resale at less than the contract prices. 

Patents — Sale of Patented Article — Price Restrictions. 

The right of a patentee to impose a price restriction on 
sale of a patented article extends to a licensee to whom 
has been granted the exclusive right to make, use, and 
sell the patented invention throughout the United States. 

Patents — Sale in Violation of Restrictions — Injunction 
— Adjudication of Patent. 

Where there was nothing to rebut the presumption of 
validity of a patent, and there was a certain public acqui- 
escence, it was no objection to the issuance of a tempor- 
ary injunction to restrain defendant's sale of the patented 
article in violation of price restrictions that the patent 
had never been adjudicated. 

12. Parke-Davis & Co. v. H. K. Mulford Co. 
(Two Cases) 

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York, April 28, 1911. 
189 F. R., p. 95) 

Patents — Validity — Multiplication of Claims. 
It is not objectionable for a patentee to first make as 
broad a claim as he can in good faith and follow it "vvith 



APPENDIX 249 

narrower claims differentiated from each other to pro- 
tect himself against possible anticipations of which he 
may not be aware. 

13. W. W. Sly Mfg. Co. v. Russell & Co. 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, July 12, 1911. 
189 F. R., p. 61) 

Patents — Construction — Limitation by Proceedings in 
Patent Office. 

Where an applicant for a patent acquiesces in the rejec- 
tion of the claims presented, and amends the same or 
substitutes others to meet the objections of the Patent 
Office, he must be deemed to have surrendered and dis- 
claimed what he has thus conceded, and is bound by the 
limitation so imposed; and in such case it is immaterial 
whether the Patent Office was right or wrong in rejecting 
the original claims. 

14. American Graphophone Co. v. Victor Talking 
Mach. Co. et al. 

(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey, Jan. 3, 1911. 
188 F. R., p. 431) 

Patents — Suit for Infringement — Effect of License. 

A license under a patent for a stated term cannot be 
terminated before the expiration of such term except by 
mutual agreement of the parties or the adjudication of 
a court, and the licensor cannot, by himself declaring a 
forfeiture, maintain a suit under the patent laws for in- 
fringement against the licensee. 

Patents — License — Revocation. 

Where a contract provides for an exchange of licenses 
to manufacture under specified patents severally owned 
by the respective parties, the consideration being such 
mutual agreements, one party cannot elect to abrogate 



250 APPENDIX 

or rescind it with respect to a single license while retain- 
ing it in effect as to the others. 

15. CoM^iERciAL Acetylene Co. et al. v. Acme 
Acetylene Appllince Co. et al. 

(Circuit Court. E. D. Michigan. S. D., AprU 26, 1911. 

On [Motion for Rehearing. [May 11. 1911. 

1S8 F. R., p. 89) 

Patents — Validity — Abandonment — Method and Ap- 
paratus Applications. 

A method and the apparatus for practicing such methods 
are distinct things, and may be the subjects of separate 
inventions and covered by separate patents: and, where 
separate appUcations are made for each by the same in- 
ventor, his withdrawal or abandonment of one does not 
aft'ect the vahdity of a patent granted for the other. 

16. .John Kitchen. Jr. Co. v. Le^ttson 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Xinth Circuit. July 3, 1911. 
ISS F. R.. p. 658) 

Patents — Reissues — Presumption of Regularity of Pro- 
ceedings. 

From the reissue of a patent it is to be presumed that 
the law was complied with, and the proceedings can only 
be impeached for fraud. 

17. National Binding [NLich. Co. v. J-imes D. 
[McLaurin Co. 

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York, ISIarch 2, 1911. 
186 F. R.. p. 992) 

Patents — Infringement — Defenses. 

Infringement is not avoided by the fact that defendants' 
machine does not work as perfectly as complainants', 
provided it is iatended to work in the same way. 



APPENDIX 251 

18. Cover v. American Thermo-Ware Co. et at. 

(Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D., April 25, 1911. 
188 F. R., p. 670) 

Patent — Invention — Substitution of Materials. 

The making of a device either in whole or in part of 
materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is 
used than materials of which those of the prior art were 
made, and for that reason better and cheaper, unless the 
mode of operation is thereby changed, does not constitute 
patentable invention. 

19. Ryder et al. v. Townsend. 

(Circuit Court, N. D. New York, April 1, 1911. 
188 F. R., p. 792) 

Patents — Validity — Broad and Specific Claims. 

When an inventor makes an invention and in his 
specification points out a specific construction and also 
has a general broad claim, and when this is done, in order 
to sustain the broader claim, it is not necessary that he 
should point out in his patent that the specific construc- 
tion shown is not essential to the invention. 

20. Geneva Mfg. Co. et al. v. National Furniture 

Co. et al. 

(Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois, March 27, 1911. 
188 F. R., p. 662) 

Patents — Reissues — Validity. 

A reissue patent issued on an application filed as soon 
as the patentee discovered that his original claims had 
inadvertently been made too broad, and which narrows 
them to his actual invention, is valid. 



252 APPENDIX 

21. MONEYWEIGHT ScALE Co. V. TOLEDO COM- 
PUTING Scale Co. 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Jan. 3, 
1911. 187 F. R., p. 826) 

Patents — Reissues. 

The inadvertence of the sohcitors of an applicant for 
a patent is his inadvertence, and, on the other hand, their 
erroneous judgment in submitting to the rejection of 
claims is his erroneous judgment, and he is estopped from 
presenting any of such rejected claims in an application 
for a reissue. 

Patents — Reissues — Inadvertence. 

Where none of the original claims presented by an 
applicant for a patent was adequate to cover the inven- 
tion disclosed by the specification and drawings, acquies- 
cence in the rejection of such claims is not an abandonment 
of the invention as an entirety, and the failure of his 
solicitors to submit adequate claims is an inadvertence 
which may entitle the applicant to a reissue. 

22. Davis et al. v. A. H. Reid Creamery & Dairy 

Supply Co. 

(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania, Feb. 16, 1911. 
187 F. R., p. 157) 

Patents — Suits for Infringement — Laches. ' 

Mere delay in the bringing of a suit for infringement of 
a patent, where it was because of the inability of the 
owner to bear the expense of the Utigation, is not such 
laches as will defeat the suit. 



APPENDIX 253 

23. McCreery Engineering Co. v. Massachusetts 

Fan Co. et al. 

(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts, Feb. 3, 1911. 
186 F. R., p. 846) 

Patent — Patentability — Invention ^'on Sale'' for More 
than Two Years. 

A patentee of a ventilating apparatus, some three years 
before he appUed for the patent, contracted to build and 
install in a church an apparatus according to plans and 
specifications shown and in substantial conformity with 
that of the patent, and to have the structure completed 
by a date more than two years prior to the filing of the 
application. Held, that the apparatus was ''on sale," 
within the meaning of Rev. St. § 4886 (U. S. Comp. St., 
1901, p. 3382), at least by the date when it was agreed 
to be completed, although it was not in fact completed 
by that time, and that it rendered the patent void. 

24. AuTOPiANO Co. V. Amphion Piano Player Co. 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, March 15, 
1911. 186 F. R., p. 159) 

Patents — Infringement. 

A patent for the very character of device which a prior 
patentee had rejected as objectionable and sought to 
avoid, as shown by his specification, carries with it a 
strong presumption that the later device is not an in- 
fringement of the earlier patent. 

Patents — "Pioneer Patent.'' 

A pioneer patent is one covering a function never before 
performed, a wholly novel device, or one of such novelty 
and importance as to make a distinct step in the progress 
of the art as distinguished from a mere improvement or 
perfection of what had gone before. 



254 APPENDIX 

25. Interurban Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Westing- 
house Electric & Mfg. Company. 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, March 24, 
1911. 186 F. R., p. 166) 

Patents — Anticipation — Prior Abandoned Application. 

An abandoned apphcation for a patent is not a bar to 
a patent to a later applicant, either as negativing novelty 
or as a printed publication. 

Patents — Prior Public Use — Sufficiency of Evidence. 

In order to defeat a patent by evidence of prior public 
use more than two years before application for the patent 
was made by another, the proof must be very clear and 
definite, and as a general proposition mere oral testimony, 
depending on the memory of the witnesses, without the 
production of any visible sign or contemporary memo- 
randa certainly fixing the character of the alleged antici- 
pating structure, will not be regarded as sufficient, 
although such rule is not inflexible. 

26. Warner Instrument Co. v. Stewart & 
Clark Mfg. Co. 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Jan. 3, 
1911. 185 F. R., p. 507) 

Patents — Invention — Combination of Old Elements. 

The mere bringing together of old parts and allowing 
each to work out its own effect, without producing some 
new machine or product, is not invention; but, to render 
a combination of old elements patentable, it must pro- 
duce a different force or effect or result from that given 
by the parts separately. 



APPENDIX 255 

27. Anton v. Grier Bros. Co. 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, March 23, 
1911. 185 F. R., p. 796) 

Patents — Invention — Combination of Old Elements. 

To sustain a patent with a combination of old elements, 
a new result must be obtained, which is due to the joint 
and cooperating action of all of the old elements. 

,28. Hestonville, M. & F. Pass. Ry. Co. et al. 
V. McDuFFEE et al. 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Feb. 21, 1910. 

185 F. R., p. 798) 

Patents — Validity and Construction — Efect of Delay 
and Amendments of Application. 

Where an applicant for a patent after his application 
has been rejected and lain dormant for j^ears, during 
which time the art has made rapid progress, amends the 
same, and on the basis of such amendments makes claims 
of a different character, it is the duty of the courts to 
scrutinize carefully the patent issued to see that it has not 
been enlarged in scope beyond the invention disclosed in 
the original application. 

29. DoBLE V. Pelton Water Wheel Co. 

(Circuit Court, N. D. California, Dec. 30, 1910. 

186 F. R., p. 526) 

Patents — Anticipation — Accidental Use of Device. 

The mere accidental employment of a feature or ele- 
ment of a device, where its real value, for a purpose for 
which it is afterward put in use by another, is not recog- 
nized at the time of such accidental use, cannot be in- 
voked to anticipate a patent for the later device. 



256 APPENDIX 

Patents — Invention — Simplicity of Device. 

Simplicity of a device is no evidence of want of inven- 
tion nor of obviousness, but in such cases the question of 
patentabiUty may, and in many cases must, be determined 
largely from the results attained. 

30. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. et al. 
V. Ohio Brass Co. 

(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey, Feb. 10, 1911. 
186 F. R., p. 518) 

Patents — Suit to Obtain Patent — Laches. 

The remedy by bill in equity to obtain a patent which 
has been refused by the Patent Office, given by the Rev. 
St. § 4915 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 3392), is a part of 
the application for the patent, and is governed by the 
rule as to laches declared by Rev. St. § 4894 (U. S. Comp. 
St., 1901, p. 3384), which provides that the failure of an 
applicant to prosecute his application within one year 
after any action therein shall be regarded as an abandon- 
ment, unless it be shown that the delay was unavoidable. 

Words and Phrases — " Unavoidable Delay.'' 

A delay caused by negligence is not ''unavoidable." 

31. Columbia Motor Car Co. et al. v. C. A. 
DuERR & Co. et aL 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Jan. 9, 1911. 
On Taxation of Costs, Feb. 8, 1911. 184 F. R., 
p. 893) 

Patents — Construction and Operation — Effect of Delay 
in Patent Office. 

Where an applicant for a patent followed strictly the 
statutes and rules of procedure of the Patent Office, the 
courts cannot exact a greater measure of diligence from 



APPENDIX 257 

him, and the fact that he took advantage of the delays 
which the law permitted him, cannot affect the consider- 
ation to which his patent is entitled when granted. 

Patents — Validity — Combination Containing Unde- 
scribed Element. 

A patent is granted for solving a problem, not for 
stating one, and a claim for a combination which embraces 
an element only in case it is made capable of being em- 
ployed in the combination and without disclosing means 
of adapting it, is invalid as disclosing nothing definite. 

Patents — Validity and Infringement Gasoline Auto- 
mobile. 

The Selden patent, No. 549,160, for an improved road 
engine, granted in 1895 on an application filed in 1879, 
claim 11, covers, broadly speaking, a combination of 
three elements — the carriage, the drive mechanism, and 
the engine. The first two elements were concededly old, 
and no novelty is disclosed in them. The engine, de- 
scribed as a ''liquid hydrocarbon gas engine of the com- 
pression type," was also old, there being at the time of 
the application two forms of such engine in extensive use 
— the Brayton, or constant pressure, engine with slow 
combustion and constant fiame ignition, operating with- 
out explosion, and the Otto, or constant volume, explosion 
engine. The combination itself was not new in an inven- 
tive sense, as the Brayton engine had been applied to 
motor boats and to some extent to vehicles. As thus 
broadly stated in the language of the claim, it is void for 
lack of invention in view of the prior art, but as limited 
by the specification and drawings, w^hich show an engine 
of the Brayton type, with certain improvements and adap- 
tations resulting in a decrease in weight and bulk in pro- 
portion to the power produced and in increase in speed, 
the claim discloses invention and is valid as covering a 



258 APPENDIX 

combination embracing as a novel element an improved 
liquid hydrocarbon engine of the Brayton type. As so 
limited, the claim is not infringed by the modern gaso- 
line automobile in which the engine is of the Otto constant 
volume or explosion type with electric ignition. 

32. Cotto-Waxo Chemical Co. v. Perolin Co. 
OF America 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Feb. 15, 
1911. 185 F. R., p. 267) 

Patents — Construction of Claims — Proceedings in Patent 
Office. 

A claim in a patent as allowed must be read and inter- 
preted with reference to claims that have been rejected 
and to the prior state of the art, and cannot be so con- 
strued as to cover either what was rejected by the Patent 
Office or disclosed by prior devices. 

Patents — Construction — Proceedings in Patent Office. 

The liberal construction allowed to pioneer inventions 
cannot be invoked in favor of a patentee whose claim was 
limited to save it from anticipation by previous patents, 
so as to broaden the claim and practically make it cover 
what was rejected by the Patent Office. 

Patents — Construction — Proceedings in Patent Office. 

Where a patentee on the rejection of his application 
inserts limitations and restrictions for the purpose of 
obtaining his patent, he cannot, after he has obtained it, 
claim that it shall be construed as it would have been 
construed if such limitations and restrictions were not 
contained in it, nor insist on a construction which will 
include what he was expressly required to abandon and 
disavow as a condition of the grant. 



APPENDIX 259 

33. Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Nichols & Shepaed Co. 

(Circuit Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D., Nov. 14, 1910. 
On Exceptions to Answer and Motion to Strike 
out Cross-Bill, May 26, 1911. 190 F. R., 
p. 579) 

Patents — Rights of Licensee — Sale in Violation of 
Conditions. 

Where a licensee under a patent entitling him to use 
a patented machine under certain conditions only, under- 
takes to use the machine otherwise than in conformity 
with such conditions, he loses the protection of his license, 
and is liable as an infringer. 

Patents — License — Conditions. 

Where a license, authorizing defendant to use certain 
patents, provided that defendant should maintain spec- 
ified prices and should place certain trade-mark plates 
on each machine containing any of the patented improve- 
ments, and thai it should also make reports of sales and 
pay money for royalties, provisions as to the maintenance 
of prices and the application of trade-marks operated as 
conditions to defendant's right to use the patent, though 
not so as to the provisions for reports of sales and for 
payment of royalties. 

Patents — Licenses — Validity — Conditions — Price Re- 
striction. 
A price restriction in a patent license is a valid condi- 
tion. 

Specific Performance — Patent License — Conditions. 

Where a license to manufacture and use patents in the 
construction of certain machines contained conditions that 
certain sets of labels, furnished by the licensor, and em- 
bodying his trade-mark, should be affixed to every ma- 
chine made under the license, and that the licensee should 



260 APPENDIX 

maintain a specified schedule of prices, such covenants 
were affirmative in character and proper subjects of a bill 
for specific performance. 

Patents — Licenses — Violation — Election or Remedies. 

Where a patent licensor conceives that the licensee is 
operating outside the agreed field, the licensor may elect 
to disregard the license and sue for infringement, or, if he 
can show that he has not sufficient legal remedy, he may 
sue in equity for specific performance. 

Patents — License — Estoppel. 

Where a patentee licenses the use of the invention, 
the patentee may not deny the licensee's right to act under 
the patent, nor may the licensee dispute the validity of the 
patent within the scope of the license, but the patentee 
cannot sue the licensee for infringement on the ground 
that he is operating outside the conditions of the license 
and at the same time claim that the licensee, by reason 
of. the license, is estopped to dispute the validity or effect 
of the patent. 

Specific Performance — Patent License — Adequate Rem- 
edy at Law. 

Where a license to embody patents in certain machines 
provided that the licensee should maintain a specified 
schedule of prices and that none of the machines con- 
taining the inventions should go into the market unless 
branded with the patentee's trade-marks, etc., the patentee 
had no adequate remedy at law for a violation of such 
conditions, and was therefore entitled to sue for specific 
performance. 

Specific Performance — Adequate Remedy — Damages — 
Penalty. 

A license to use patents in certain machines contained 
conditions as to the manner of use, and declared that, on 



APPENDIX 261 

the licensee's failure to attach the patentee's labels to 
machines containing the inventions, it should pay the 
licensor $100 as liquidated damages ''now estimated, 
determined, and agreed upon." Held, that such clause 
provided for a penalty and not for liquidated damages, 
and that its presence in the contract did not conclusively 
establish that the patentee had an adequate remedy at 
law sufficient to preclude specific performance. 

34. Centuey Electric Co. v. Westinghouse 
Electric & Mfg. Co. 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Nov. 6, 
1911. 191 F. R., p. 350) 

Patents — Anticipation — Applications Pending Together. 

Where each of several applications, which subsequently 
ripen into patents to the same inventor, describes the 
same machine and process and the inventions claimed in 
all the applications, but no one of the applications claims 
any invention claimed in any of the others, and they are 
all pending at the same time, the respective dates of the 
applications and of the patents and the respective dates 
when the applications were filed are immaterial, and the 
applications and patents cannot be used to anticipate or 
avoid each other. 

Patents — Anticipation — Prior Patents — Identity of 
Invention. 

While an earlier patent avoids a later patent to the 
same patentee for the invention claimed and secured by 
the former, it does not invalidate a later patent to him for 
a distinctly different invention not claimed and secured 
by the earlier patent, whether that invention is general 
or specific, is of a process or a machine, or of both, and 
whether it is of an original machine or process, or of an 
improvement thereon. 



262 APPENDIX 

Patents — Invention — Number of Patents Procurable. 

One who makes several patentable inventions that 
produce a new and useful process or machine, or both, 
pertaining to the same subject matter, has the option to 
take one patent therefor or as many separate patents 
therefor as he makes patentable inventions. 

Patents — Construction — Nature of Patent — '^ Contract^ 
A patent is a contract, and it must be interpreted by 
the same rules of construction as other contracts. 

Patents — Construction — Specifications and Claims — 
Construction as a Whole. 

The intention of the parties should be deduced from the 
entire contract, not from any part of it, or without any 
part of it. 

The specification which is a part of the same application 
and specification as are the claims must be read and inter- 
preted with them, not for the purpose of contracting or 
of expanding the latter, but to ascertain from the entire 
agreement the actual intention of the parties, and that 
intention when ascertained should prevail. 

Patents — Invention — Process and Apparatus. 

Separate patents for a new and useful process and for 
a new and useful apparatus to practice it may be sus- 
tained, although no other apparatus to practice it is 
known. 

Patents — Infringement — Presumptions — Decision of 
Patent Office. 

It is a general rule that there is a legal presumption 
that a process or apparatus of a later patent does not in- 
fringe upon that of an earlier patent relating to the same 
subject. 

It is a general rule that a process or apparatus of a 



APPENDIX 263 

later patent does not infringe the process or apparatus 
of an earlier patent where the Commissioner has decided 
there was no interference between them. 

There is an exception to this rule to the effect that 
where a patentee has made a primary invention of a new 
or useful process or apparatus which accomplishes a result 
never before produced by such a process or machine, the 
presumption that a process or apparatus of a later patent 
on the same subject is for a subordinate improvement or 
modification of the primary invention and hence subject 
to an infringement of the patent which secures it, is at 
least as strong as the presumption of the general rules, 
because there are many more patents for subordinate im- 
provements and modifications of primary inventions than 
there are for such inventions, and hence more probability 
that a given process or apparatus is of the former than 
that it is of the latter class. 

Patents — Infringement — Defenses. 

It is no defense to a charge of infringement of a process, 
an apparatus or a combination clearly described and 
claimed in a patent that it, or some part of it, was mis- 
named therein by the patentee, or that the infringer has 
called it by a different name. Patents protect processes, 
apparatus and combinations, whatever their names. 

35." T. B. Wood's Sons Co. v. Valley Iron Works 

(Circuit Court, M. D. Pennsylvania, Oct. 19, 1911. 
191 F. K, p. 196) 

Patents — Invention and Anticipation — Presumptions 
and Burden of Proof. 

A patent implies novelty and invention, and the bur- 
den of proof rests upon one attacking its validity to estab- 
lish anticipation or lack of invention beyond a reasonable 
doubt. 



264 ' APPENDIX 

36. Pelton Water Wheel Co. v. Doble 

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Oct. 9, 1911. 
190 F. R., p. 760) 

Patents — Patentable Combinations — Essentials.- 

It is not necessary to constitute a patentable combina- 
tion that each element in performing its own function 
shall also modify the function performed by the others, 
but it is generally sufficient if there be such coaction that 
a result is produced which is new, and the result is new 
if it is substantially a better result than that which has 
been accomplished by other combinations. 

Patents — Patentable Combinations. 

That there is novelty in one of the elements does not 
justify a claim to a patentable combination of the ele- 
ments, unless there is coaction between them to produce 
a new result, but a combination is not unpatentable 
merely because the result might have been accomplished 
by other combinations. 

RESOLUTION OF THE INVENTOR'S GUILD 

This communication to former president Taft is notice- 
able because the suggestions, while partially carried out, 
still require attention. 

To the Honorable William H. Taft, President of the 
United States: 

Whereas: The Constitution of the United States 
provides : 

''The Congress shall have the power to promote the 
progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited 
times, to inventors, the exclusive right to their respective 
discoveries." 

And Whereas: This Constitutional provision was in- 
tended to obtain for the benefit of the nation the publica- 



• . APPENDIX 265 

tion of every new and useful invention in such full, clear, 
concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled 
in the art or science to which it pertains to make, con- 
struct, compound, or use the invention, after the limited 
time for which the exclusive right is secured to the inven- 
tor by patent; and thereby to secure for the Nation the 
great benefit which, all experience shows, results to a 
Nation from publishing inventions, in contradistinction 
to following a policy which would tend to encourage trade 
secrets, monopoly, and trade combinations, which mini- 
mize the value of inventions to the Nation. 

And Whereas : A patent is in effect a contract between 
the Government and the inventor, by which the Govern- 
ment, in consideration of the right to publish the invention 
for the benefit of the Nation, agrees that in return for his 
satisfactory disclosures of his new and useful invention 
under reasonable conditions, to be determined by the 
Government, it will secure the inventor for a limited time 
in the exclusive right to his new and useful invention. 

And Whereas: An inventor, after having performed 
his part in the contract by having made proper disclosure 
of a new and useful invention to the United States Govern- 
ment officials, is frequently subjected to imreasonable 
delay, expense, and injustice before obtaining his patent, 
and after having obtained his patent is not equitably se- 
cured in his exclusive right as the Constitution intended 
that he should be secured in return for his disclosures in 
good faith of his new and useful invention; and as a con- 
sequence of this unfair treatment of inventor patentees, 
the United States is not obtaining, in the degree that it 
should, the National benefit of the best inventive work of 
its many able inventors. 

And Whereas: The United States Patent System has 
been evolved to its present condition without proper con- 
sideration of the rights of the Nation, and of the inventors, 



266 APPENDIX 

who are the two real parties at interest, but on the con- 
trary has been developed to its present condition almost 
entirely as the result of suggestions from persons who do 
not occupy the position of one of the parties to the con- 
tract which every patent represents; and who do not 
suffer damage from the delays, complications, injustice 
and expense characteristic of the United States Patent 
System and the United States Courts which hear patent 
causes, said damage being borne principally but in- 
directly by the Nation and to a lesser degree, but directly, 
by the inventor patentees. 

And Whereas: It is a well-known fact that modem 
trade combinations tend strongly toward constancy of 
processes and products, and by their very nature are 
opposed to new processes and new products originated by 
independent inventors, and hence tend to restrain com- 
petition in the development and sale of patents and 
patent rights; and consequently tend to discourage inde- 
pendent inventive thought, to the great detriment of the 
Nation, and with injustice to inventors whom the Con- 
stitution especially intended to encourage and protect in 
their rights. 

And Whereas: Under existing methods of trying 
patent causes, an inventor patentee of average means 
could not, at his own expense, carry to a conclusion an 
average patent litigation against a wealthy opponent, 
and therefore a few wealthy concerns usually acquire 
nearly all important patents in their field, to the great 
damage of the Nation because of the restraint of competi- 
tion and because of the resulting tendencj^ of such inven- 
tors to seek protection for their inventions by trade secrets 
or else to cease inventive work. 

And Whereas: Efficient protection by patent of new 
and useful inventions would offer to the average American 
manufacturer one of the best methods of meeting foreign 



APPENDIX 267 

competition and would, in addition, improve quality, re- 
duce first cost, and stimulate fair competition, with result- 
ing benefit to the entire Nation. 

Resolved : The Inventors' Guild composed exclusively 
of independent and experienced inventor patentees, does 
hereby respectfully ask the attention of the President of 
the United States to the urgent need of reforms in the 
Patent Ofiice, and also in the courts which hear and 
decide patent causes; and hereby requests the President 
to recommend to Congress the advisability of appoint- 
ing a Committee to confer with experienced and repre- 
sentative inventors with the object of promptly accom- 
plishing such reforms as will result in more effectually 
carrying out the intention of the Constitution; and to 
supplement such recommendations by such executive 
action as in his judgment seems likely to assist in accom- 
plishing the needed reforms. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Inventors' Guild. 
By Ralph D. Mershon, President. 

FORMS 

Assignment Forms 

From U. S. Rules of Practice 
These are only suggestive. Each case requires its own treatment. 

38. Of an entire interest in an invention before the 
ISSUE of letters patent 

Whereas I, , of , county of , and 

State of , have invented a certain new and useful improve- 
ment in , for which I am about to make application for 

letters patent of the United States; and whereas , 

of , county of , and State of , is desirous of 

acquiring an interest in said invention and in the letters patent to 
be obtained therefor: 

Now, therefore, to aU whom it may concern, be it known that, 
for and in consideration of the sum of dollars to me in hand 



268 



APPENDIX 



CHART FOR DRAFTSMEH 



^£CT/OA/ or fVOODO/i M£TAL 




^£C7-/0/V Of C£:M£//T 






•S£CT/0^/ OF /A/JOL/^r/OAf 




l/QU/D 



•3£CT/0A/ "fe £ l£l/y4T/OA/ 0£.5AA^J rOA/£ 




COA/fJ£ -%, £/A/££AS/f/C 





fi£D 




BLU£ C/f££A/ r£lLOW BLACK PU/iPL£ O/iAf/GS 











ELECTRICAL SYMBOLS 




AA/NUNC/ATO/iS 



OfiOP A/VA/UAfC/ATO/f 



3rO/?AC£C£U 



<y&^ [»r Hi|i|i|f- 



UJ 



B£U FOlA/f/Z£D BUZZ£/i C0/VD£N3£/f ^.C.G£Af£/^ArO/f £>.C.G£N£fiA70/i 

BELL 1 (5/f^GL£ FMASl) 




-(iA°>- 



D 




~0- 



D.C.G£A/£/rArO/< D.C.G£^£^ATO/i £>.C.G£A/£RATOfi AfAG/^fTO T//£/7M0-£l£Cr/{/C 

(5£ff/£6 ^OUA^O). (buc/vr tVOC//l/£>J (COAfFOmff iV06/A^£>) G£A/£flATOfi 6£A/£/<AT0/f 





COA^jrAA/riY D/f/\^£A/ Aforo/f 

AiA GA/£ TO G£A/£/iA TO/? 



/fOTA/^r 



WW 



T/r/ PHASE C£A/£/i-Aro/f 
C^TA/i co/y'V 






APPENDIX 



269 



ELECTRICAL SYMBOLS 



lWMN6(/lA/f COA/'V 




rO^ 



AA7P c//fcu/r 



■ xxyyxxyx 



(//VCA/VO£3C£/VrJ 



c2a 



o 
o 
o 



^/fC £./fyt^^ //^CA*/0£SCE/i/r AT£r£/T /iMM£r£fT 

i.AAf/' 



o 
-o- 



GAHi'AA/OM£r£/T 



'W 



\P S^— -r-i^X^/ 



yOLTM£T£/i IVATTMErER MOTOff OCMOrOfi O.C.MOTOff aCMOTOff 

CS£/r/CS tvOUMP) (SN(/fi/T tvouuo) 



/A/oacr/OA/ A7oro/T /f/ot/cr/o// Atoro/f wduct/oa/ Moro/f *forofi o/rc£A^£ffAro/i 

fy9(///iKei CACe AffAfATl//tCj ('y ' tV/A/O/A/Gj tO£lTA ^/VO/A>Cf fi/VAJ£ JMCmOAKICO,mr^£XC/r£/lJ 






/rSJ/STAA/Ce WDUCT/Ve yAff/ABL£ WDl/fr/y£ fieS/JTANC£ /NOUCT/ve /f£SlSTAVC£ 

/i£s/srAA/c£ /r£s/sr/\A/c£ (Ua/i/srAffif co/i£/ /^Aa/c/srABL£ coitj 

nAA/WVV^-<mXI>- AVvWw mm^ - fytAj^n 



AfOV JNDUCT/\^e /iHSOSrAT JOUA/O/O JiV/TCH /<AflF£ £>OUBl£ ^()L£ POl£ 

/f£J/SrAA/C£ JIVlTCff JmrCH C»ANG£t 



"nafinniir #M^ 



— Iljl — 
II Jl 



c/nca/rsR£AK£/ti jp/t/a/g 

fi>y£filOAOJ ft/A//?£/HOAOj JACH 




^- 





rUJ£ l/Gf/T£Af/A/e T£i.£G/fAfff 
AaR£ST£fi f<£y 



db 



i^ 



/TELAY OR f<£LAY Of/'ESfTEA/r/AL COUE/TE/f FOlA/f/ZEO CfiOUfifO 

JOUA/0£ff /f£LAY _ f<£LAY 

( HI ^ 



C£l 



TElEfHON£ T/{ANSMITT£/!S fi£C£/Y£fiS l/SYEA/ZA/G O/f 
HOOH ii /i/A/CIA/GHEYJ 



T/iAA/JFOKMER 



~-q> — — i — a.icde/^At/^l/nnop^r^lizvivJC7^^ JZ34J67S90 



270 APPENDIX 

paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I, the said 

, have sold, assigned, and transferred, and by these presents 

do sell, assign, and transfer, unto the said the full 

and exclusive right to the said invention, as fully set forth and 
described in the specification prepared and executed by me on the 

day of , 19. . , preparatory to obtaining letters patent 

of the United States therefor; and I do hereby authorize and request 
the Commissioner of Patents to issue the said letters patent to the 

said as the assignee of my entire right, title, and 

interest in and to the same, for the sole use and behoof of the said 
and his legal representatives. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and fixed 

my seal this day of , 19 . . . 

[seal.] 

In presence of 



(If assignment, grant, or conveyance be acknowledged as provided for by Rule 
197, the certificate will be prima facie evidence of the execution of such assignment, 
grant, or conveyance.) 

39. Of the entire interest in letters patent 

Whereas I, , of , county of , State 

of , did obtain letters patent of the United States for an 

improvement in , which letters patent are numbered , 

and bear date the day of , in the year 19. . ; and 

whereas I am now the sole owner of said patent and of all rights 

imder the same; and whereas , of , county 

of , and State of , is desirous of acquiring the entire 

interest in the same: 

Now, therefore, to all whom it may concern, be it known that, 

for and in consideration of the sum of dollars to me in hand 

paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I, the said 

, have sold, assigned, and transferred, and by these presents 

do sell, assign and transfer unto the said the whole 

right, title, and interest in and to the said improvement in 

and in and to the letters patent therefor aforesaid; the same to be 

held and enjoyed by the said , for his own use and 

behoof, and for the use and behoof of his legal representatives, to 
the full end of the term for which said letters patent are or may be 
granted, as fully and entirely as the same would have been held 
and enjoyed by me had this assignment and sale not been made. 



APPENDIX 271 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my 

seal at , in the county of , and State of , this 

day of , 19. .. 

[seal.] 

In presence of 



40. Of an undivided interest in letters patent 

Whereas I, , of , county of , State 

of ....... did obtain letters patent of the United States for an 

improvement in , which letters patent are numbered 

, and bear date the day of , in the year ; 

and whereas , of , county of , State of 

, is desirous of acquiring an interest in the same: 

Now, therefore, to all whom it may concern, be it known that, 

for and in consideration of the sum of dollars to me in hand 

paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I, the said 

, have sold, assigned, and transferred, and by these presents 

do seU, assign, and transfer unto the said the un- 
divided one-haK part of the whole right, title, and interest in and to 
the said invention and in and to the letters patent therefor afore- 
said; the said undivided one-half part to be held and enjoyed by 

the said , for his own use and behoof, and for the use 

and behoof of his legal representatives, to the full end of the term 
for which said letters patent are or may be granted, as fully and 
entirely as the same would have been held and enjoyed by me had 
this assignment and sale not been made. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 

my seal at , in the county of , and State of , 

this day of , 19 . . . 

[seal.] 

In presence of 



41. Territorial interest after grant of patent 

Whereas I, , of , county of , State 

of , did obtain letters patent of the United States for improve- 
ment in , which letters patent are numbered 

and bear date the day of in the year 19 . . ; and 

whereas I am now the sole owner of the said patent and of all rights 



272 APPENDIX 

under the same in the below-recited territory; and whereas 

, of , county of , State of , is desirous 

of acquiring an interest in the same: 

Now, therefore, to all whom it may concern, be it known that, 

for and in consideration of the sum of dollars to me in hand 

paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I, the said 

, have sold, assigned, and transferred, and by these presents 

do sell, assign, and transfer unto the said all the 

right, title, and interest in and to the said invention, as secured 

to me by said letters patent, for, to, and in the State of , 

and for, to, or in no other place or places; the same to be held and 

enjoyed by the said within and throughout the 

above-specified territory, but not elsewhere, . for his own use and 
behoof, and for the use and behoof of his legal representatives, to 
the full end of the term for which said letters patent are or may be 
granted, as fully and entirely as the same would have been held 
and enjoyed by me had this assignment and sale not been made. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 

my seal at , in the county of , and State of , 

this day of , 19 . . . 

[seal.] 

In presence of 



42. License — shop-right 

In consideration of the sum of dollars, to be paid by the 

firm of , of , in the county of , State of 

, I do hereby license and empower the said to 

manufacture in said (or other place agreed upon) the im- 
provement in , for which letters patent of the United 

States No were granted to me the day of , in 

the year 19 . . , and to sell the machines so manufactured throughout 
the United States to the full end of the term for which said letters 
patent are granted. 

Signed at , in the county of and State of , 

this day of , 19 . . . 

In presence of 



APPENDIX 273 

43. License — not exclusive — with royalty 

This agreement, made this day of , 19 . . , between 

, of , in the county of and State of 

, party of the first part, and , of , in 

the county of and State of , party of the second part, 

witnesseth, that whereas letters patent of the United States No. 

. . . . , for improvement in , were granted to the party 

of the first part on the day of , 19. . ; and whereas 

the party of the second part is desirous of manufacturing 

containing said patented improvements : Now, therefore, the parties 
have agreed as follows : 

I. The party of the first part hereby hcenses and empowers the 
party of the second part to manufacture, subject to the conditions 

hereinafter named, at their factory in , and in no other place 

or places, to the end of the term for which said letters patent were 

granted, containing the patented improvements, and to 

sell the same within the United States. 

II. The party of the second part agrees to make fuU and true 
returns to the party of the first part, under oath, upon the first 
days of 

Canadian Assignments 

From Canadian ''Patented Inventions" 

Form 18. Of an entire interest (or an undivided one- 
half interest) in an invention before the issue 

OF patent 

In consideration of one doUar, to me paid by Solomon Lang of 
the City of Montreal, I do hereby seU and assign to the said Solomon 
Lang aU (or an undivided haK of all) my right, title and interest 
in and to my invention for new and useful improvements in planing 
machines, as fully set forth and described in the specification which 
I have signed preparatory to obtaining a patent, and I do hereby 
authorize and request the Commissioner of Patents to issue the 
said patent to the said Solomon Lang (or jointly to myself and the 
said Solomon Lang) in accordance with this assignment. 

Witness my hand and seal this first day of September, 1903, 

at the City of Montreal. 

Thomas Lord [L.S.] 

Form 19. Of an entire interest in a patent 
In consideration of five hundred dollars, to me paid by Daniel 
MuUin, of the City of Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, I do 



274 APPENDIX 

hereby sell and assign to the said Daniel Mullin all my right, title 
and interest in and to the Patent of Canada, No. 23,460, for an 
improvement in locomotive head hghts, granted to me July 30, 
1902, the same to be held by and enjoyed by the said Daniel Mullin 
to the full end of the term for which said Patent is granted, as fully 
and entirely as the same could have been held and enjoyed by me 
if this assignment and sale had not been made. 

Witness my hand and seal this first day of September, 1903, at 
Montreal, Province of Quebec. 

Horace Kimball [L.S.] 

PATENT AGREEMENT WITH EMPLOYEE 

BETWEEN 



AND 
WHOSE POST-OFFICE ADDRESS IS 



In consideration of my employment and the salary paid to me by 
,1 hereby agree; that 

All inventions and discoveries which I make while in the employ 
of said Company, constituting improvements in its then existing 
products, shall become its exclusive property; that, 

I will, immediately upon the conception of any and all such in- 
ventions and discoveries, disclose the same to said Company; that 

Without further compensation — except such as said Company 
deems fit and proper in the premises after Letters Patent have been 
obtained and the said invention or discovery proven to be of value 

to it I will, at the instance of said Company, do all acts, 

sign and execute all applications and other papers necessary and 
incident to obtaining and maintaining in force Letters Patent for 
any and all such inventions and discoveries, both in the United 
States and countries foreign thereto; and, that 

I wUl sign and execute all papers necessary to transfer to and 
vest in said Company my entire right, title and interest in and to 
said inventions, discoveries and applications, and in and to any 
and all Letters Patent obtained or to be obtained therefor, and 
will authorize the Commissioner of Patents to issue such patents to 
, Company as assignee thereof. 



APPENDIX 275 

The expenses incident to said inventions, discoveries, applica- 
tions, Letters Patent and transfers are to be borne by said Com- 
pany. 

{Sign here) 

Witnesses: 

Signed at 

19.. 

Accepted , 19 . . . 

{Name of Company) 

per 

Brennan^s Handbook. 

EMPLOYEE'S PATENT AGREEMENT 

The undersigned in consideration of his employment by , 

and in further consideration of the salary received by him for such 
employment, hereby agrees that all inventions and discoveries 
pertaining to the business of said Company, which may be made 
by him while in its employ shall become the property of said Com- 
pany, and that he will assign to said Company all applications made 
by him for Letters Patent of the United States and elsewhere, and all 
Letters Patent that may be granted to him, covering such inven- 
tions and discoveries, without further compensation; that he will 
promptly on conception of any patentable idea or invention, dis- 
close the same to said Company, and on its request so to do wiU 
make application for Letters Patent covering such discoveries; and 
that he will execute all other papers whatsoever that may be neces- 
sary to transfer to and vest in said Company all the right, title and 
interest in and to such inventions and discoveries, it being under- 
stood and agreed that all expense incident to the securing of any 
Letters Patent or apphcations for patent shall be borne by said 
Company. 



,19... 

Brennan's Handbook. 

PATENT CLAUSES 

Customers frequently take the position that machinery or de- 
vices may be subject to patent litigation involving them in a suit 
or suits, and insist on a protecting clause in the contract, by which 



276 APPENDIX 

the seller agrees to save the customer harmless against damages 
resulting from the customer's use of the patented article. In agree- 
ing to such an arrangement care should be exercised in its wording, 
so that the seUer may reserve to himself the conducting of the suits, 
and covering which the following is a suggested clause: 

"We hereby agree to indemnify and save you harmless from and 
under any and all claims or suits for damages for infringement of 
any Letters Patent claimed by any person or persons relating to any 
part or portion of this machinery, provided you give us prompt 
and sufficient notice of said claim or suit and such information, 
assistance and power of attorney as may be necessary to answer to 
and defend such suits." Brennan's Handbook. 

OPTION (FOR PATENT APPLIED FOR OR PATENT 

GRANTED). 

(Options are frequently secured on related inventions before 
marketing the invention in question. It is customary for some manu- 
facturers to secure options on patents which may restrict or re-en- 
force the invention in question.) 

Form: 

Know All Men by these Presents, that I (seller) of (residence) 
for and in consideration of $1.00 and other good and valuable con- 
siderations, the receipt of which I do hereby acknowledge, paid by 
(buyer) of (residence), do hereby seU, grarrt, and convey to said 
(buyer), for the period ending (date option is to expire) after the date 
hereof, an exclusive option entitling said (buyer) to purchase frqm me 
all the right, title, and interest in and to an invention for (description) 
more particularly described by me in an application for United 

States Letters Patent therefor, filed by me on the day of 

, No (or to United States Letters Patent No 

issued to me on day of ) . 

And I do hereby agree upon the payment to me of $ . . . . (pur- 
chase price agreed upon) by the said (buyer) on or before (the date 
when option is to expire), to execute a valid and binding assignment 
to the said (buyer) of aU the right, title, and interest in and to the 
said invention and to the United States Letters Patent to be ob- 
tained therefor (or to the said Patent), and do any and all things 
necessary to fully vest title in and to the same in the said (buyer). 
Signed (seller) 

Date (of execution) 

Witness: 

Thomson on Patents. 



APPENDIX 



277 



PATENTS ISSUED IN LEADING COUNTRIES OF 
THE WORLD * f 



United States 

France 

Great Britain 

Germany 

Belgium. 

Canada 

Italy and Sardinia 

Austria 

Switzerland 

Spain 

Sweden 

Russia 



To 1870 
inclusive 



120,573 

103,934 

53,044 

9,996 

35,044 

4,081 

4,723 

None 

None 

None 

1,269 

1,464 



1870 to 
1911 



1,002,478 

336,964 

371,966 

238,110 

202,456 

129,609 

94,175 

64,793 

50,197 

44,987 

31,734 

23,528 



Total 



,123,051 

440,898 

425,374 

248,106 

237,500 

133,690 

98,898 

64,793 

50,197 

44,987 

33,363 

24,992 



* Elec. World. 

t 37,731 patents were granted in the U. S. in 1912, and 35,788 U. S. patents were 
issued in 1913. 



A Selected List of Books Which will he Useful to Readers Who 

Wish Further Details on the Subjects Treated in 

This Volume 

American School of Correspondence: Law of Patents: Instruction 
Paper. 1912. 

Banning, H. A., and Arden, H.: Reports of Patent Causes. 

Cooper: Financing an Enterprise. 

Cresce, F. A.: Practical Pointers for Patentees. 1902, 1912. 

Edelman, P. E.: "Experiments" contains — Steps required in a 
marketable invention; Examination of patents; Principles of 
invention and research; Model making; Organization of In- 
dustrial Research Dept., and similar ^ information. $1.50. 
1914. 

Fair weather, W. C: Foreign and Colonial Patent Laws. 1911. 

French: Engineering Drawing. (Includes sketching and notes on 
patent drawings.) 

Grimshaw, R. : Hints to Inventors. 

Hart, A. W.: Digest of Patent Decisions. 1899. 

Hiscox, G. D.: Mechanical Movements, Powers and Devices — Two 
Volumes. 



278 APPENDIX 

Hopkins, J. L.: Law of Patents and Patent Practice in the Patent 

Office and Federal Courts. 1911. 
Hopkins, G. M.: Inventor's Manual. 1901. 
Hutchinson, W. B., and CrisweU, J. A. E.: Patents and How to 

Make Money out of Them. 1899. 
lies, G.: Invention and Discovery. 

Inventors at Work. 
Machinery, "^^rincipal Points of Patent Law"; Instruction pam- 
phlet for machinists. 25d. 
Macomber, G. W.: Fixed Law of Patents. 1909. 

Engineers' Handbook on Patents. 1912. 
IVIagruder, W. B.: Assignments of Patent Rights. 1912. 
Marks, G. C.: Inventions, Patents, and Designs. 1909. (EngUsh 

practice.) 
Montague, G. H.: Gist of the Supreme Court Decision in the 

Dick Henry Patent Case, and of the proposed Patent Law 

Amendments, 1912. (Obtained gratis by addressing G. H. 

Montague, 55 Liberty St., N. Y. C.) 
PoUard, W. L. : Digests of Decisions of Law and Practice in Patent 

Office and United States and State Courts in Patents, Trade 

Marks, Copyrights, and Labels. 1897-1912. 
Pontius, W. L., comp.: Protection Extended to Patents, Designs, 

Trade Marks and Copyrights in China, Japan, and Korea. 1909. 

U. S. Pat. Office. 
Prindle, E. J.: Patents as a Factor in Manufacturing. 1908. 
Robinson, W. C: Law of Patents. 1890. (A standard reference.) 
Simonds, W. E.: Law of Design Patents. 

Singer, B.: Patent and Trade Mark Laws of the World. 1911. 
Smiles, S. : Men of Invention and Industry. 
Stoddard, E. J., comp.: Practice in the United States Patent 

Office. 
Swan, K. R. : Law and Commercial Usage of Patents, Designs and 

Trade Marks. 1908. {Note: English practice in particular.) 
Synnestvedt, P.: Notes on Patents and Patent Practice. 1906. 
Terrell, T.: Law and Practice Relating to Letters Patent for Inven- 
tion. 
Thompson, W. P.: Handbook of Patent Law. 1905. 
Thompson, E. P. : How to Make Inventions. 

Thomson, H. C: Patents, Trade-marks and Design Patents. 1913. 
Tpwle, G. M.: Heroes and Martyrs of Invention. 
United States Congress, 62d session. Revision of Patent Laws: 
Report. 



APPENDIX 279 

United States Patent Office. Codification of the Patent Laws. 

1912. (Doc. 555, 62 Cong, session.) 
United States Patent Office: Definitions of Revised Classes and 

Subclasses of Subjects of Invention in the United States Patent 

Office, in numerical order. 
Walker, A. H. : Textbook of the Patent Laws of the United States. 

1904. (A standard reference.) 



INDEX 



Numbers refer to pages. 



A. 



116, 



Abandoned applications, 
238. 

Abandoned inventions, 66. 

Abandonment, 83-237. 

Abandonment of patent and of 
application, 67. 

Addition, an improvement, 48. 

Addition patents, foreign, 181. 

Agreements, patent, 156. 

Allowance of patent, 84. 

Amendments, how made, 80. 

Anticipation, 66. 

Anticipation, abandoned appli- 
cation is not an, 254. 

Anticipation, accidental use of 
device, 255. 

Anticipation, when two co-pend- 
ing applications do not antici- 
pate each other, 261. 

Appeal to commissioner, 115. 

Appeals, 114. 

Appeals, costly, 120. 

Appeals from examiner, 78. 

Appeals in priority contest, 121. 

AppHcant and Patent Office, 241. 

Apphcant, responsibility of, 13. 

Apphcation, forfeited, 117. 

AppUcation for patent, 74. 

Apphcation for mipatentable in- 
vention, 217. 

Application, rejected, 66. 

AppUcation, what constitutes, 
75. 



Articles of manufacture, new, 41. 

Assignment before patent issues, 
151. 

Assignment, form, 267. 

Assignment of entire interest in 
Letters Patent, 270. 

Assignment of undivided inter- 
est in Letters Patent, 271. 

Assignments, 140, 238. 

Attorney, frauds, 209. 

Attorney, value of, 23. 

Attorneys, conduct of, 208. 

Attorneys, duty of, 24. 

Attorneys, rehability of, 20-22. 

Attorneys, scheme, 25. 

Attorneys, selection of, 20. 

B. 

Basic inventions, 73. 
Books on patents, 276. 
Broad claims, 108. 
Buried patents, 157. 

C. 

Canadian assignments, 273. 
Canadian patents, 182. 
Caveats (abolished), 55. 
Caveats, early history of, 8. 
Chemical equivalent, 229. 
Claim analysis, 110. 
Claim enlarged, 238. 
Claim in infringement, 229, 230. 
Claim, restriction of, 82. 



281 



282 



INDEX 



Claim, rewriting, 82. 

Claims, 96. 

Claims, advantages of a group 

of, 105. 
Claims, cancellation of, 81. 
Claims, construction of, 102, 

258. 
Claims, construed as separate 

inventions, 230. 
Claims, dissecting, 106. 
Claims, easy to get, 24. 
Claims, effect of amending, 249. 
Claims, effect of specification 

on, 262. 
Claims, examples of, 103. 
Claims, functional, 112. 
Claims, general and specific, 245. 
Claims, length of, 110. 
Claims, multiplicity of, 249. 
Claims, nature of, 101. 
Claims, new, 82. 
Claims, order of, 106. 
Claims, special classes of, 109. 
Claims, rejected, 107. 
Commercialized patents, 152. 
Commissioner of Patents, 12. 
Communications to Patent 

Office, 13. 
Composition inventions, 43. 
Compulsory licenses, foreign, 

180. 
Constitution, patent provision, 5. 
Contributory infringement, 169, 

235. 
Contributory infringement, de- 
fined, 236. 
Contributory infringer, 228. 
Corporations, 158. 
Cost of patents, 128. 
Cost, reduction of, 40. 
Court decisions of note, 242. 
Court of Appeals, 119. 



D. 

Damages, 174. 

Decree, requisites for, in infringe- 
ment case, 226. 

Dedication to the public, 143. 

Deductive method of invention, 
27. 

Delay, effect of, 256. 

Design patents, 51, 95. 

Development of inventions, 34. 

Diligence in reduction to prac- 
tice, 54. 

Disbarment of attorneys, 211. 

Disclaimers, 122. 

Division, difficulties of, 84. 

Divisional case, 83, 123. 

Double patenting, 244. 

Draftsmen, chart for, 268. 

Draftsmen, patent, 74. 

Drawings, correction of, 79. 

Drawings for inventions, 32. 

Drawings, patent, 74, 113. 

E. 

Employee's patent agreement, 
form, 275. 

Employer and employee, 125, 
241. 

English patents, 185. 

Equity rules, federal, 165. 

Equivalents, 67. 

Equivalents, inventor entitled 
to, 230. 

Ex parte cases, 116. 

Examination of patent, 77. 

Examiner, appeal from, 78. 

Examiners in patent office, 12. 

Examiners, requirements for, 16. 

Experimental use, 65. 

Experimental use, no infringe- 
ment, 226. 

Experts, patent, 118. 



INDEX 



283 



F. 

Failure, cause of, 33. 

Fees, 74, 

Fees, final patent, 84. 

Fewer parts and better work, 46. 

Filing in patent office, 76. 

Foreign patents, 123, 176, 187. 

Foreign patents, statistics of, 

276. 
Foreign patents, when to apply 

for, 180. 
Foreign patents, who may apply 

for, 180. 
Forfeited application, 117. 
Forfeiture, 237. 
Forms, 267. 
Free searches, 57, 
French patents, 185. 
Functional claims. 111. 

G. 

Gazette, official, 8. 
German-owned patents, 135. 
German patents, 181-182. 
Government as purchaser, 158. 

H. 

Handwork, elimination of, 39. 
Henry-Dick case, 130, 235. 
Human life, protection of, 40. 

I. 

Idea is not an invention, 52, 65. 
Ideas, how obtained, 29. 
Importation infringement, 225. 
Improvement patents, 245. 
Improvement patents, value of, 

45. 
Improvements, 43, 48. 
Indefinite wording, 79. 
Index, patent office, 61. 



Inductive method of invention, 
27, 

Industrial inventors, 152. 

Infringement, 67, 162, 168, 253. 

Infringement, avoiding, 165-168. 

Infringement by changes from 
patent, 231, 232. 

Infringement by evasion of 
patent, 231. 

Infringement by use of a part of 
patent, 230. 

Infringement by use of equiva- 
lents, 233-234. 

Infringement, conflicting adju- 
dications, 245. 

Infringement, decisions concern- 
ing, 222. 

Infringement, defenses, 250. 

Infringement, examples of, 227. 

Infringement, ignorance no ex- 
cuse for, 230. , 

Infringement of combination pat- 
ent, 247. 

Infringement of design patent, 
244, 

Infringement of foreign patents, 
184. 

Infringement of patented part, 
233. 

Infringement, presumption that 
a later patent does not in- 
fringe an early one, 263. 

Infringement, prior patentee can- 
not use improvement, 232. 

Infringement, substantial adop- 
tion of invention constitutes, 
229. 

Infringement suit, division of 
cost, 243. 

Infringement suits, 242. 

Infringement, useless defense, 
263. 



284 



INDEX 



Infringement, what constitutes, 

166. 
Infringer, 170. 
Infringer, defenses of, 170. 
Infringers, attempt to escape 

punishment, 246. 
Injunction, 173, 244. 
Injunction, requisites of, 227. 
Inquiries to Patent Office, 13. 
Interference proceedings, 119. 
Interferences, 117. 
International convention, 183. 
International infringement, 225. 
International patent, 186. 
Invalid claim, example of, 257. 
Invention, a profession, 199. 
Invention, by arrangement of 

old parts, 47. 
Invention by change in construc- 
tion, 64. 
Invention by combination of old 

elements, 254_, 255. 
Invention, commercial worth of, 

69. 
Invention depending on new re- 
form, 47. 
Invention, fields of, 35, 37. 
Invention may exist in spite of 

existence of similar devices in 

other arts, 246. 
Invention, none by transposing 

parts, 64. 
Invention, old machme, new 

purpose, 63. 
Invention, opportunities in, 35. 
Invention, proofs of, 55. 
Invention, protecting an, 86. 
Invention, school of, 198. 
Invention, secret without patent, 

89. 
Invention, simplicity of no bar 

to patentability, 256. 



Invention, success in, 27. 
Invention, systematic, 197. 
Inventions, abandoned, 66. 
Inventions, classification of, 36. 
Inventions, how made, 29. 
Inventions, petty, 31. 
Inventions, practicability of, 70. 
Inventions, unprofitable pursuits 

in, 51. 
Inventive method, 30. 
Inventor and investor, cautions 

for, 69. 
Inventor as manufacturer, 157. 
Inventor, who he is, iii, 26. 
Inventors as national defense, 

191. 
Inventors, books for, 277. 
Inventors, classes of, 26. 
Inventors, effective age of, 26. 
Inventor's Guild Resolution, 264. 
Inventor's staffs, 157. 
Inventors, thoughts on, 190. 
Investment in patents, 157. 
Investor, concern in patents, iv. 

J. 

Joint inventors, 34, 125, 241. 
Joint owners of patents, 135. 



K. 



Kahn BiU, 197. 

L. 

Labor saving inventions, 39. 
Last step rule, 73. 
Legislation, patent, 195. 
License, 249, 259. 
License form, 272. 
License not transferable, 238. 
License, with royalty, form, 273. 
Licensee, 141. 
Licenses, 130, 133. 



INDEX 



285 



Licenses, infringing, 235. 
Litigation, 172. 

M. 

Machine operations, 40. 

Machinery, seUing patented, 275. 

Machines, 38. 

Machines, for new results, 41. 

Manufacture, infringement even 
if not used, 227, 229. 

Manufacture, infringing, 225. 

Manufacturer, what he wants to 
know, 161. 

Manufacturers, concern in pat- 
ents, iii. 

Manufacturers, some dislike pat- 
ents, 70. 

Marking goods patented, 137. 

Matters of form, 79. 

Mechanical equivalent, infring- 
ing, 228. 

Mechanical skUl, 241. 

Memoranda, 200. 

Method and apparatus patents, 
250. 

Methods of inventors, 32. 

Models, 114. 

Models for invention, 32-33. 

Monopoly, legal and illegal, 3. 

N. 

Narrow claims, 108. 
Narrow patents, 100. 
Notice of infringement, 167. 
Novelty, 58. 

O. 

Oath, 113. 

Official gazette, 85. 
Oldfield bUl, 196. 
Organized invention, 152. 



P. 

Patent acts, 8-9. 

Patent agreement with em- 
ployee, form for, 274. 

"Patent applied for," marking, 
239. 

Patent attorneys, examiners who 
become, 12. 

Patent attorneys, need of, 18. 

Patent clauses, 275. 

Patent examination, 77. 

Patent experts, 25. 

Patent exploitation, 158. 

Patent, first granted, 3. 

Patent, "getting around a," 49. 

Patent implies merit, 263. 

Patent laws, unwritten require- 
ments, 78. 

Patent legislation, 196. 

Patent, liberal construction not 
allowed to amended claims, 
258. 

Patent litigation, chance of suc- 
cess in, 172. 

Patent office, 12. 

Patent office, a new one needed, 
15. 

Patent office, improvements 
needed, 124. 

Patent office, not free from error, 
116. 

Patent office, prices of publica- 
tions, 14. 

Patent office procedure, 74. 

Patent office, responsibihty of, 
15. 

Patent office statistics, 60. 

Patent promotion, 150. 

Patent, prosecution, 77. 

Patent protection, world pro- 
visions for, 183. 

Patent reforms needed, 265. 



286 



INDEX 



Patent rights, 224, 237, 240. 

Patent rights, disposing of, 138. 

Patent suit, 171. 

Patent system, development of, 
1. 

Patent title, afforded by claims, 
146. 

Patent, U. S. No. 1, 8. 

Patent, what determines value 
of, 105. 

Patent, what is a, 63. 

Patent, what it is granted for, 
257. 

Patentability, 61, 63. 

Patentability, essentials of, 264. 

PatentabiUty not secured by sub- 
stitution of materials, 251. 

Patentable, simple things are, 
72. 

Patentable, what is not, 64. 

"Patented," marking, 137. 

Patentee, rights of, 134, 237. 

Patentee's rights, decisions af- 
fectmg, 235. 

Patenting impractical inven- 
tions, 73. 

Patents as investment, 157. 

Patents, copies of, 14, 

Patents, construction, 258. 

Patents, contracts relating to, 
141. 

Patents, cost of, 128. 

Patents, costs of foreign, 177. 

Patents, early, 4, 5, 6. 

Patents, extensions of, 128. 

Patents for designs, 51. 

Patents, how many can be taken 
out, 262. 

Patents in competitive trade, 
152. 

Patents, laws regulating, 136. 

Patent, limit of a, 230. 



Patents, monopoly in, 45, 130. 

Patents, not listed as assets, 45. 

Patents, number of, 10. 

Patents of world, statistics of, 
276. 

Patents on property, 135. 

Patents, origin of, 2. 

Patents, scope of, 99. 

Patents, selling, 142-144, 218. 

Patents, shelved, 157. 

Patents, statute of 1836, 7. 

Patents, "thin," 98. 

Patents, value of understand- 
ing, 46. 

Patents, when to apply for, 34, 
128. 

Patents with numerous claims, 
110. 

Petition, 74. 

Pioneer patent, definition, 253. 

Piracy, 48. 

Pirated invention, 67. 

Preamble of patent specifica- 
tion, 93. 

Preliminary injunction, 174. 

Preliminary search, 57. 

Preliminary search, foreign, 179. 

Price for patent, 154. 

Price maintenance, 130-131, 247. 

Priority contest, 121. 

"Prizes" for inventions, 212. 

Process and apparatus, 262. 

Process and product, infringe- 
ment, 225. 

Process of improvements, 46. 

Process patents, 42. 

Profits, 174. 

Profits and damages, accounting 
for, 243. 

Proofs of invention, 55. 

Prosecution, effect of delay in, 
255. 



INDEX 



287 



Prosecution of patent, 77. 
Public benefit by invention, 64. 
Public sale over two years, 253. 
Public use, 65, 127. 
Public use, evidence of, 254. 
Publication of discovery can be 

restrained, 240. 
Publications, anticipating, 66. 
Publications of the patent office, 

14. 

R. 

Reduction to practice, 52. 

Reduction to practice, precau- 
tions against suits, 55. 

Reference to prior patents, 81. 

Reissue patent, inadvertence, 
252. 

Reissue patent, valid, 250, 251. 

Reissues, 122, 238. 

Rejected claims, 107. 

Remedies for infringement, 173. 

Renewal, 237. 

Renewing a patented part, in- 
fringement, 227. 

Repairs, infringing patent, 277. 

Responsive action, 82. 

Royalties, 132-153. 

Royalty form, 273. 

S. 

Sale, infringing, 225-228. 
Sales of patents, 148. 
Sanatogen Case (Bauer Co. — 

O'Donnell), 131. 
Schemes, agency, 149. 
Scope, examination of, 147. 
Search, 56. 
Search, cost of, 58. 
Search system, 17. 
Secrets, inventions kept secret, 

2, 90. 



Selden automobile case, 257. 

Selling inventions without pat- 
ents, 177. 

Selling patents, 153. 

Selling patents, precautions in, 
159. 

Serial number, 76. 

Shop right form, 272. 

Shop rights, 141, 155. 

Simplicity no bar to invention, 
64. 

Specification, 92, 239. 

Specification, effect on claims of, 
262. 

Specific performance of a license, 
260. 

Statement of invention, 94. 

"Substantially as set forth," 
108. 

T. 

Taxes, foreign, 178. 

Territorial grantee, 234. 

Territorial interest, form for, 
271. 

Theory, correct explanation im- 
material if description is clear, 
246. 

Thoughts on invention, 188. 

Threatening suits, 244. 

Title of patent, 93. 

Trade combines under patents, 
139. 

Trivial inventions, 31. 

U. 

"Unavoidable delay," 256. 
Undivided rights, 139. 
Unfair competition, 244. 
United States patent laws, 11. 
Unpatentable subjects, 68. 
Use, infringing, 225. 



288 



INDEX 



V. 

''Valid in one circuit, void in an- 
other," example of patent, 243. 

Validity and infringement, 257. 

Validity, broad and specific 
claims, 251. 

Validity, examination into, 147. 



W. 

Warning patentees, 226. 

Waste materials, commercializ- 
ing, 41. 

Would-be and actual inventor, 
53. 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY 

25 PARK PLACE 

NEW YORK 

SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

OP 
OF 

SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING 

BOOKS 




This list includes the technical publications of the following English 
publishers : 

SCOTT, GREENWOOD & CO. JAME5 MUNRO & CO.. Ltd. 

CONSTABLE & COMPANY, Ltd. TECHNICAL PUBLISHING CO. 
ELECTRICIAN PRINTING & PUBLISHING CO., 

for whom D. Van Nostrand Company are American agents. 

Descriptive Circulars sent on request. 



August, 191 5 

SHORT=TITLE CATALOG 

OF THE 

Publications and Importations 

OF 

D, VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY 

25 PARK PLACE 

Prices marked with an asterisk (*) are NET 
All bindings are in cloth unless otherwise noted 



* 



Abbott, A. V. The Electrical Transmission of Energy 8vo, 

A Treatise on Fuel. (Science Series No. 9.) i6mo, 

— ^^ — Testing Machines. (Science Series No. 74.) i6mo, 

Adam, P. Practical Bookbinding. Trans, by T. E. Maw.iamo, 

Adams, H. Theory and Practice in Designing 8vo, 

Adams, H. C. Sewage of Seacoast Towns 8vo, 

Adams, J. W. Sewers and Drains for Populous Districts.. . .Svo, 

Adler, A. A. Theory of Engineering Drawing Svo, 

Principles of Parallel Projecting-Line Drawing Svo, 

Aikman, C. M. Manures and the Principles of Manuring. . .Svo, 

Aitken, W. Manual of the Telephone Svo, 

d'Albe, E. E. F. Contemporary Chemistry i2mo, 

Alexander, J. H. Elementary Electrical Engineering i2mo, 

.Lilian, W. Strength of Beams under Transverse Loads. 

(Science Series No. 19.) . i6mo, o 50 

Allan, W. Theory of Arches. (Science Series No. 11.). . i6mo, 
Allen, H. Modern Power Gas Producer Practice and Applica- 
tions i2mo, *2 50 

Gas and Oil Engines Svo, *4 50 

Anderson, J. W. Prospector's Handbook i2mo, i 50 



$5 


00 





50 





50 


*2 


50 


*2 


50 


*2 


GO 


2 


50 


*2 


00 


*I 


00 


2 


50 


*8 


00 


*I 


25 


2 


03 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 3 

Andes, L. Vegetable Fats and Oils 8vo, *4 oo 

Animal Fats and Oils. Trans, by C. Salter 8vo, *4 oo 

■ Drying Oils, Boiled Oil, and Solid and Liquid Driers. . .8vo, *5 oo 

Iron Corrosion, Anti-fouling and Anti-corrosive Paints. 

Trans, by C. Salter 8vo, *4 oo 

Oil Colors and Printers* Ink. Trans, by A. Morris and 

H. Robson 8vo, *2 50 

Treatment of Paper for Special Purposes. Trans, by C. 

Salter i2mo, *2 50 

Andrews, E. S. Reinforced Concrete Construction i2mo, *i 25 

Theory and Design of Structures 8vo, 3 50 

Further Problems in the Theory and Design of Struc- 
tures 8vo, 2 50 

Andrews, E. S., and Heywood, H. B. The Calculus for 

Engineers lamo, i 25 

Annual Reports on the Progress of Chemistry. Eleven Vol- 
umes now ready. Vol. I, 1904, to Vol. XI, 19x4, 8vo, 
each •. *2 00 

Argand, M. Imaginary Quantities. Translated from the French 

by A. S. Hardy. (Science Series No. 52.) i6mo, o 50 

Armstrong, R., and Idell, F. E. Chimneys for Furnaces and 

Steam Boilers. (Science Series No. i.) i6mo, o 50 

Arnold, E. Armature Windings of Direct Current Dynamos. 

Trans, by F. B. DeGress 8vo, *2 00 

Asch, W., and Asch, D. The Silicates in Chemistry and 

Commerce 8vo, *6 00 

Ashe, S. W^., and Keiley, J. D. Electric Railways. Theoreti- 
cally and Practically Treated. Vol. I. Rolling Stock 

i2mo, *2 50 
Ashe, S. W. Electric Railways. VoL II. Engineering Pre- 
liminaries and Direct Current Sub-Stations i2mo, *2 50 

Electricity: Experimentally and Practically Applied. 

i2mo, *2 00 

Ashley, R. H. Chemical Calculations i2mo, *i 00 

Atkinson, A. A. Electrical and Magnetic Calculations. .Svo, *i 50 

Atkinson, J. J. Friction of Air in Mines. (Science Series 

No. 14.) i6mo, o 50 

Atkinson, J. J., and Williams, E. H., Jr. Gases Met with in 

Coal Mines. (Science Series No. 13.) i6mo, o 50 



4 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TI-fLE CATALOG 

Atkinson, P. The Elements of Electric Lighting i2mo, i 50 

The Elements of Dynamic Electricity and Magnetism. 1 2mo, 2 00 

Atkinson, P. Power Transmitted by Electricity i2mo, 2 00 

Auchincloss, W. S. Link and Valve Motions Simplified. . . .8vo, *i 50 

Austin, E. Single Phase Electric Railways 4to, *5 00 

Ayrton, H. The Electric Arc 8vo, *5 00 

Bacon, F. W. Treatise on the Richards Steam-Engine Indica- 
tor 1 2mo, I 00 

Bailes, G. M. Modern Mining Practice. Five Volumes. 8 vo, each, 3 50 

Bailey, R. D. The Brewers' Analyst 8 vo, *5 00 

Baker, A. L. Quaternions i2mo, *i 25 

Thick-Lens Optics i2mo, *i 50 

Baker, Benj. Pressure of Earthwork. (Science Series No. 56.) 

i6mo, 

Baker, I. Levelling. (Science Series No. 91.) i6mo, 50 

Baker, M. N. Potable Water. (Science Series No. 61) . i6mo, o 50 
Sewerage and Sewage Purification. (Science Series No. 18.) 

i6mo, 50 
Baker, T. T. Telegraphic Transmission of Photographs. 

i2mo, *i.25 
Bale, G. R. Modern Iron Foundry Practice. Two Volumes. 

i2mo. 

Vol. I. Foundry Equipment, Material Used *2 50 

Vol. II. Machine Moulding and Moulding Machines *i 50 

Ball, J. W. Concrete Structures in Railways 8vo, *2 50 

Ball, R. S. Popular Guide to the Heavens 8vo, *4 50 

Natural Sources of Power. (Westminster Series) 8vo, *2 00 

Ball, W. V. Law Affecting Engineers 8vo, *3 50 

Bankson, Lloyd. Slide Valve Diagrams. (Science Series No. 

108.) i6mo, o 50 

Barba, J. Use of Steel for Constructive Purposes i2mo, i 00 

Barham, G. B. Development of the Incandescent Electric 

Lamp 8vo *2 00 

Barker, A. Textiles and Their Manufacture. (Westminster 

Series) 8vo, 2 00 

Barker, A. P., and Midgley, E. Analysis of Textile Fabrics, 

8vo, 3 00 

[Bailcer, A. H. Graphic IMethods 'Of Engine Design i2mo, *i 50 

<— - Heating and Ventilation 4to, *8 00 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 5 

Barnard, J. H. The Naval Militiaman's Guide. .i6mo, leather, i oo 
Barnard, Major J. G. Rotary Motion. (Science Series No. 90.) 

i6mo, o 50 

Barrus, G. H. Boiler Tests 8vo, *3 00 

Engine Tests 8vo, *4 00 

The above two purchased together *6 00 

Barwise, S. The Purification of Sewage i2mo, 3 50 

Baterden, J. R. Timber. (Westmenster Series) 8vo, *2 00 

Bates, E. L., and Charlesworth, F. Practical Mathematics and 

Geometry for Technical Students i2mo, 

Part I. Preliminary and Elementary Course *i 50 

Part II. Advanced Course *i 50 

Practical Mathematics *i 50 

Practical Geometry and Graphics *2 00 

Batey, J. The Science of Works Management i2mo, *i 25 

Beadle, C. Chapters on Papermaking. Five Volumes . i2mo, each, *2 00 

Beaimiont, R. Color in Woven Design Svo, *6 00 

Finishing of Textile Fabrics Svo, *4 00 

Bechhold, H. Colloids in Biology and Medicine. Trans, by J. G. 

Bullowa {In Press.) 

Bedell, F., and Pierce, C. A. Direct and Alternating Current 

Manual Svo, *2 00 

Beech, F. Dyeing of Cotton Fabrics Svo, *3 00 

Dyeing of Woolen Fabrics Svo, *3 50 

Beckwith, A. Pottery Svo, paper, o 60 

Beggs, G. E. Stresses in Railway Girders and Bridges. . . . (In Press.) 

Begtrup, J. The Slide Valve Svo, *2 00 

Bender, C. E. Continuous Bridges. (Science Series No. 26.) 

i6mo, o 50 

Proportions of Pins used in Bridges. (Science Series No. 4.) 

i6mo, o 50 

Bengough, G. D. Brass. (Metallurgy Series) (In Press.) 

Bennett, H.G. The Manufacture of Leather Svo, *4 50 

Bernthsen, A. A Text-book of Organic Chemistry. Trans, by 

G. M'Gowan i2mo, *2 50 

Berry, W. J. Differential Equations of the First Species. 

i2mo (In Preparation.) 
Bersch, J. Manufacture of Mineral and Lake Pigments. Trans. 

by A. C. Wright Svo, *5 00 



6 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

Bertin, L. E. Marine Boilers. Trans, by L. S. Robertson. .8 vo, 

Beveridge, J. Papermaker's Pocket Book i2mo, 

BirLnie, Sir A. Rainfall Reservoirs and Water Supply .. 8vo, 

Binns, C F. Manual of Practical Potting 8vo, 

= The Potter's Craft lamo, 

Birchmore, W. H. Interpretation of Gas Analysis lamo, 

Blaine, R. G. The Calculus and Its Applications lamo, 

Blake, W. H. Brewer's Vade Mecum 8vo, 

Blasdale, W. C. Quantitative Chemical Analysis. .. .i2mo, 
Bligh, W. G. The Practical Design of Irrigation Works. .Bvo, 

Bloch, L. Science of Illumination Bvo, 

Blok, A. Illumination and Artificial Lighting i2mo, 

Blucher, H. Modem Industrial Chemistry. Trans, by J. P. 

Millington 8vo, 

Blyth, A. W. Foods: Their Composition and Analysis. ..Svo, 

Poisons: Their Effects and Detection Svo, 

Bockmann, F. Celluloid i2mo, 

Bodmer, G. R. Hydraulic Motors and Turbines i2mo, 

Boileau, J. T. Traverse Tables Svo, 

Bonney, G. E. The Electro-plater's Handbook i2mo, 

Booth, N. Guide to Ring-Spinning Frame i2mo, 

Booth, W. H. Water Softening and Treatment Svo, 

Superheaters and Superheating and their Control. . .Svo, 

Bottcher, A. Cranes: Their Construction, Mechanical Equip- 
ment and Working. Trans, by A. Tolhausen. .. .4to, *io oo 
Bottler, M. Modern Bleaching Agents. Trans, by C. Salter. 

i2mo, *2 50 

Bottone, S. R. Magnetos for Automobilists i2mo, *i 00 

Boulton, S. B. Preservation of Timber. (Science Series No. 

82.) i6mo, o 50 

Bourcart, E. Insecticides, Fungicides and Weedkillers . . . Svo, '^4 50 
Bourgougnon, A. Physical Problems. (Science Series No. 113.) 

i6mo, o 50 
Bourry, E. Treatise on Ceramic Industries. Trans, by 

A. B. Searle Svo, *5 00 

Bowie, A. J,, Jr. A Practical Treatise on Hydraulic Mining. Svo, 5 00 
Bowles, 0. Tables of Common Rocks. (Science Series.; .i6mo, o 50 



5 


00 


^4 


00 


*3 


00 


*7 


50 


*2 


00 


*I 


25 


*I 


50 


u 


00 


-^2 


50 


*6 


00 


*2 


50 


*I 


25 


*7 


50 


7 


50 


7 


50 


'""2 


50 


5 


00 


5 


00 


I 


20 


*i 


25 


*2 


50 


*I 


50 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 7 

Bowser, E. A. Elementary Treatise on Analytic Geometry. lamo, i 75 
Elementary Treatise on the Differential and Integral 

Calculus lamo, 2 25 

Bowser, E. A. Elementary Treatise on Analytic Mechanics, 

i2mo, 3 00 

Elementary Treatise on Hydro-mechanics i2mo, 2 50 

A Treatise on Roofs and Bridges *2 25 

Boycott, G. W. M. Compressed Air Work and Diving. .8vo, *4 00 

Bragg, E. M. Marine Engine Design i2mo, *2 00 

^ Design of Marine Engines and Auxiliaries {In Press.) 

Brainard, F. R. The Sextant. (Science Series No. ioi.).i6mo, 

Brassey's Naval Annual for 191 1 8vo, *6 00 

Brew, W. Three-Phase Transmission 8vo, *2 00 

Briggs, R., and Wolff, A. R. Steam-Heating. (Science Series 

No. 67.) i6mo, o 50 

Bright, C. The Life Story of Sir Charles Tilson Bright. .8vo, *4 50 
Brislee, T. J. Introduction to the Study of Fuel. (Outlines 

of Industrial Chemistry.) 8vo, *3 00 

Broadfoot, S. K. Motors Secondary Batteries. (Installation 

Manuals Series.) i2mo, *o 75 

Broughton, H. H. Electric Cranes and Hoists *9 00 

Brown, G. Healthy Foundations. (Science Series No. 80.). i6mo, o 50 

Brown, H. Irrigation 8vo, *5 00 

Brown, Wm. N. The Art of Enamelling on Metal i2mo, *i 00 

Handbook on. Japanning and Enamelling i2mo, *i 50 

House Decorating and Painting i2mo, *i 50 

History of Decorative Art i2mo, *i 25 

Dipping, Burnishing, Lacquering and Bronzing Brass 

Ware i2mo, *i 00 

Workshop Wrinkles 8vo, *i 00 

Browne, R. E. Water Meters. (Science Series No. 8i.).i6mo, o 50 

Bruce, E. M. Pure Food Tests i2mo, *i 25 

Bruhns, Dr. New Manual of Logarithms 8vo, cloth, 2 00 

Half morocco, 2 50 
Brunner, R. Manufacture of Lubricants, Shoe Polishes and 

Leather Dressings. Trans, by C. Salter 8vo, *3 00 



8 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY''s SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

Buel, R. H. Safety Valves. (Science Series No. 21.) . . .i6mo, o 50 
Burley, G. W. Lathes, Their Construction and Operation, 

i2ino, I 25 

Burstall, F. W. Energy Diagram for Gas. With text...8vo, *i 50 

Diagram sold separately *i 00 

Burt, W. A. Key to the Solar Compass i6mo, leather, 2 50 

Buskett, E. W. Fire Assaying i2mo, *i 25 

Butler, H. J. Motor Bodies and Chasis 8vo, *2 50 

Byers, H. G., and Knight, H. G. Notes on Qualitative 

Analysis 8vo, *i 50 

Cain, W. Brief Course in the- Calculus lamo, *i 75 

■ Elastic Arches. (Science Series No. 48.) i6mo, o 50 

Maximum Stresses. (Science Series No. 38.) i6mo, o 50 

Practical Dsigning Retaining of Walls. (Science Series 

No. 3.) i6mo, o 50 

Theory of Steel-concrete Arches and of Vaulted Struc- 
tures. (Science Series.) i6mo, o 50 

Theory of Voussoir Arches. (Science Series No. 12.) 

i6mo, o 50 

Symbolic Algebra. (Science Series No. 73.) i6mo, o 50 

Carpenter, F. D. Geographical Surveying. (Science Series 

No. 37.) i6mo, 

Carpenter, R. C, and Diederichs, H, Internal-Combustion 

Engines ; 8vo, *5 00 

Carter, E. T. Motive Power and Gearing for Electrical Ma- 
chinery 8vo, 3 50 

Carter, H. A. Ramie (Rhea), China Grass i2mo, *2 00 

Carter, H. R. Modern Flax, Hemp, and Jute Spinning. . 8vo, *3 00 

^ Bleaching, Dyeing and Finishing of Fabrics Jvo, *i 00 

Cary, E. R. Solution of Railroad Problems With the Use of 

the Slide Rule i6mo, *i 00 

Cathcart, W. L. Machine Design. Part I. Fastenings. . .8vo, *3 00 
Cathcart, W. L., and Chaffee, J. I. Elements of Graphic 

Statics and General Graphic Methods 8vo, *3 00 

Short Cour:e in Graphic Statics i2mo, *i 50 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 9 

Caven, R. M., and Lander, G. D. Systematic Inorganic Chem- 
istry i2mo, *2 00 

Chalkley, A. P. Diesel Engines 8vo, *3 oo 

Chambers' Mathematical Tables 8vo, i 75 

Chambers, G. F. Astronomy i2mo, *i 50 

Charpentier, P. Timber 8vo, *6 00 

Chatley, H. Principles and Designs of Aeroplanes. (Science 

Series.) i6mo, o 50 

How to Use Water Power i2mo, *i 00 

Child, C. D. Electric Arcs Svo, *2 00 

Child, C. T. The How and Why of Electricity i2mo, i 00 

Christian, M. Disinfection and Disinfectants i2mo, *2 00 

Christie, W. W. Boiler-waters, Scale, Corrosion, Foaming, 

Svo, *3 00 

Chimney Design and Theory Svo, *3 00 

Furnace Draft. (Science Series.) i6mo, o 50 

Water, Its Purification and Use in the Industries. .Svo, 

Church's Laboratory Guide. Rewritten by Edward Kinch. Svo, *2 50 

Clapperton, G. Practical Papermaking Svo, 2 50 

Clark, A. G. Motor Car Engineering. 

Vol. I. Construction Svo, *3 00 

Vol. II. Design {In Press.) 

Clark, C. H. Marine Gas Engines i2mo, *i 50 

Clark, J. M. New System of Laying Out Railway Turnouts, 

i2mo, I 00 
Clarke, J. W., and Scott, W. Plumbing Practice. 

Vol. I. Lead Working and Plumbers' Materials . . Svo, *4 00 

Vol. II. Sanitary Plumbing and Fittings (In Press.) 

Vol. III. Practical Lead Working on Roofs (In Press.) 

Clerk, D., and Idell, F. E. Theory of the Gas Engine. 

(Science Series No. 62.) i6mo, o 50 

Clevenger, S. R. Treatise on the Method of Government 

Surveying i6mo, mor., 2 50 

Clouth, F. Rubber, Gutta-Percha, and Balata Svo, *5 00 

Cochran, J. Treatise on Cement Specifications Svo, *i 00 

Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Specifications .... Svo, *2 50 



10 D, VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

Coffin, J. H. C. Navigation and Nautical Astronomy. . i2mo, "^3 50 
Colburn, Z., and Thurston, R. H. Steam Boiler Explosions. 

(Science Series No. 2.) i6mo, o 50 

Cole, R. S. Treatise on Photographic Optics .i2mo, i 50 

Coles-Finch, W. Water, Its Origin and Use 8vo, *5 00 

Collins, J. E. Useful Alloys and Memoranda for Goldsmiths, 

Jewelers i6mo, o 50 

Collis, A. G. High and Low Tension Switch-Gear Design . 8vo, *3 50 

Switchgear. (Installation Manuals Series.) i2mo, o 50 

Coombs, H. A. Gear Teeth. (Science Series No. 120). . . i6mo, o 50 

Cooper, W. R. Primary Batteries 8vo, *4 00 

Copperthwaite, W. C. Tunnel Shields 4to, "9 00 

Corey, H. T. Water Supply Engineering .8vo (In Press.) 

Corfield, W. H. Dwelling Houses. (Science Series No. 50.) i6mo, o 50 

Water and Water-Supply. (Science Series No. 17.). . i6mo, j 50 

Cornwall, H. B. Manual of Blow-pipe Analysis 8vo, *2 50 

Cowell, W. B. Pure Air, Ozone, and Water i2mo, *2 00 

Craig, J. W., and Woodward, W. P. Questions and Answers 

about Electrical Apparatus i2mo, leather, i 50 

Craig, T. Motion of a Solid in a FueL (Science Series No. 49.) 

i6mo, o 50 
Wave and Vortex Motion. (Science Series No. 43.) . i6mo, o 50 

Cramp, W. Continuous Current Machine Design Svo, *2 50 

Creedy, F. Single-Phase Commutator Motors Svo, *2 00 

Crocker, F. B. Electric Lighting. Two Volumes. Svo. 

VoL I. The Generating Plant 3 00 

Vol. II. Distributing Systems and Lamps 

Crocker, F B., and Arendt, M. Electric Motors Svo, *2 50 

and Wheeler, S. S. The Management of Electrical Ma- 
chinery i2mo, *i 00 

Cross, C. F., Bevan, E. J., and Sindall, R. W. Wood Pulp and 

Its Applications. (Westminster Series.) .Svo, *2 00 

Crosskey, L. R. Elementary Prospective Svo, i 00 

Crosskey, L. R., and Thaw, J. Advanced Perspective Svo, i 50 

CuUey, J. L. Theory of Arches. (Science Series No. S7.). i6mo, 050 

Dadourian, H. M. Analytical Mechanics Svo. *3 00 

Danby, A. Natural Rock Asphalts and Bitumens Svo, *2 50 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 11 

Davenport, C. The Book. (Westminster Series.) 8vo, *2 oo 

Davey, N. The Gas Turbine 8vo, *4 oo 

Da vies, F. H. Electric Power and Traction 8vo, *2 oo 

— : — Foundations and Machinery Fixing. (Installation Manuals 

Series.) i6mo, i oo 

Dawson, P. Electric Traction on Railways 8vo, *g oo 

Deerr, N. Cane Sugar 8vo, 7 00 

Deite, C. Manual of Soapmaking. Trans, by S. T. King. .4to, *5 00 
De la Coux, H. The Industrial Uses of Water. Trans, by A. 

Morris 8 vo, *4 50 

Del Mar, W. A. Electric Power Conductors 8vo, *2 00 

Denny, G. A. Deep-Level Mines of the Rand 4to, *io 00 

Diamond Drilling for Gold *5 00 

De Roos, J. D. C. Linkages. (Science Series No. 47.). . . i6mo, 50 

Derr, W. L. Block Signal Operation Oblong i2mo, *i 50 

Maintenance of Way Engineering {In Preparation.) 

Desaint, A. Three Hundred Shades and How to Mix Them. 

8vo, 8 00 

De Varona, A. Sewer Gases. (Science Series No. 55.)... i6mo, 50 
Devey, R. G. Mill and Factory Wiring. (Installation Manuals 

Series.) i2mo, *i 00 

Dibdin, W. J. Purification of Sewage and Water 8vo, 6 50 

Dichman, C. Basic Open-Hearth Steel Process 8vo, *3 50 

Dieterich, K. Analysis of Resins, Balsams, and Gum Resins 

8vo, *3 00 
Dinger, Lieut. H. C. Care and Operation of Naval Machinery 

i2mo. *2 00 
Dixon, D. B. Machinist's and Steam Engineer's Practical Cal- 
culator i6mo, mor., i 25 

Doble, W. A. Power Plant Construction on the Pacific Coast, (/n Press.) 

Dommett, W. E. Motor Car Mechanism i2mo, *i 25 

Dorr, B. F. The Surveyor's Guide and Pocket Table-book. 

i6mo, mor., 2 00 

Draper, C. H. Elementary Text-book of Light, Heat and 

Sound i2mo, i 00 

Draper, C. H. Heat and the Principles of Thermo-dynamics, 

New and Revised Edition i2mo, 2 00 



12 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

Dron, R. W. Mining Formulas i2mo, i oo 

Dubbel, H. High Power Gas Engines 8vo, *5 oo 

Duckwall, E. W. Canning and Preserving of Food Products, 8 vo, *5 oo 
Dumesny, P., and Noyer, J. Wood Products, Distillates, and 

Extracts 8vo, *4 50 

Duncan, W. G., and Penman, D. The Electrical Equipment of 

Collieries 8 vo, *4 00 

Dunstan, A. E., and Thole, F. T. B. Textbook of Practical 

Chemistry i2mo, *i 40 

Duthie, A. L. Decorative Glass Processes. (Westminster 

Series) 8vo, *2 00 

Dwight, H. B. Transmission Line Formulas 8vo, *2 00 

Dyson, S. S. Practical Testing of Raw Materials 8vo, *5 00 

and Clarkson, S. S. Chemical Works 8vo, *7 50 

Eccles, W. H. Wireless Telegraphy and Telephony. ... (/m Press.) 
Eck, J. Light, Radiation and Illumination. Trans, by Paul 

Hogner Svo, *2 50 

Eddy, H. T. Maximum Stresses under Concentrated Loads, 

Svo, I 50 

Edelman, P. Inventions and Patents i2mo, (In Press.) 

Edgcumbe, K. Industrial Electrical Measuring Instruments . 

Svo. 
Edler, R. Switches and Switchgear. Trans, by Ph. Laubach. 

Svo, *4 00 

Eissler, M. The Metallurgy of Gold Svo, 7 50 

The Metallurgy of Silver 8 va, 4 00 

The Metallurgy of Argentiferous Lead 8vo, 5 00 

A Handbook of Modern Explosives Svo, 5 00 

Ekin, T. C. Water Pipe and Sewage Discharge Diagrams 

folio, *3 00 

Electric Light Carbons, Manufacture of Svo, i 00 

Eliot, C. W., and Storer, F. H. Compendious Manual of Qualita- 
tive Chemical Analysis i2mo, *i 25 

Ellis, C. Hydrogenation of Oils Svo, *4 00 

Ellis, G. Modern Technical Drawing Svo, *2 00 

Ennis, Wm. D. Linseed Oil and Other Seed Oils Svo, *4 00 

Applied Thermodynamics Svo, *4 50 

Flying Machines To-day i2mo, *i 50 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 13 

Vapors for Heat Engines i2mo, *i oo 

Erfurt, J. Dyeing of Paper Pulp. Trans, by J. Hubner. .8vo. 

Ermen, W. F. A. Materials Used in Sizing i2mo, *2 oo 

Evans, C. A. Macadamized Roads {In Press.) 

Ewing, A. J. Magnetic Induction in Iron 8vo, *4 oo 

Fairie, J. Notes on Lead Ores i2nio, *i oo 

Notes on Pottery Clays i2mo, *i 50 

Fairley, W., and Andre, Geo. J. Ventilation of Coal Mines. 

(Science Series No. 58.) i6mo, o 50 

Fairweather, W. C. Foreign and Colonial Patent Laws . . .Svo, *3 00 

Fanning, T. T. Hydraulic and Water-supply Engineering. Svo, *$ 00 

Fay, I. W. The Coal-tar Colors Svo, *4 00 

Fernbach, R. L. Glue and Gelatine Svo, *3 00 

Chemical Aspects of Silk Manufacture i2mo, *i 00 

Fischer, E. The Preparation of Organic Compounds. Trans. 

by R. V. Stanford i mo, *i 25 

Fish, J. C. L. Lettering of Working Drawings Oblong 80, i 00 

Fisher, H. K. C, and Darby, W. C. Submarine Cable Testing. 

Svo, *3 50 
Fleischmann, W. The Book of the Dairy. Trans, by C. M. 

Aikman Svo, 4 00 

Fleming, J. A. The Alternate-current Transformer. Two 

Volumes Svo, 

Vol. I. The Induction of Electric Currents *5 00 

VoL II. The Utilization of Induced Currents *5 00 

Propagation of Electric Currents Svo, *3 00 

— — A Handbook for the Electrical Laboratory and Testing 

Room. Two Volumes Svo, each, *5 00 

Fleury, P. White Zinc Paints i2mo, *2 50 

Flynn, P. J. Flow of Water. (Science Series No. 84.) . i6mo, o 50 

Hydraulic Tables. (Science Series No. 66.) i6mo, o 50 

Forgie, J. Shield Tunneling Svo. (In Press.) 

Foster, H. A. Electrical Engineers' Pocket-book. (Seventh 

Edition.) i2mo, leather, 5 00 

Engineering Valuation of Public Utilities Svo, *3 00 

Handbook of Electrical Cost Data Svo. (In Press) 

Fowls, F. F. Overhead Transmission Line Crossings .. . .i2mo, *i 50 
The Solution of Alternating Current Problems Svo (In Press.) 



14 D. VAX NOSTKAND CO:MPAXY's SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

FoXjW. G. Transition Curves. (Science Series No. no.)- i6mo, o 50 
Fox, W., and Thomas, C. W. Practical Course in Mechanical 

Drawing i2mo, i 25 

Foye, J. C. Chemical Problems. (Science Series No. 69.). i6mo, 50 

Handbook of Mineralogy. (Science Series No. 86.). 

i6mo, o 50 

Francis, J. B. Lowell Hydraulic Experiments 4to, 15 00 

Franzen, H. Exercises in Gas Analysis i2mo, *i 00 

French, J. W. Machine Tools. 2 vols 4to, *i5 00 

Freudemacher, P. W. Electrical Mining Installations. (In- 
stallation Manuals Series.) i2mo, *i 00 

Frith, J. Alternating Current Design 8vo, *2 00 

Fritsch, J. Manufacture of Chemical Manures. Trans, by 

D. Grant Svo, *4 00 

Frye, A. I. Civil Engineers' Pocket-book i2mo, leather, *5 00 

Fuller, G. W. Investigations into the Purification of the Ohio 

River 4to, *io 00 

Furnell, J. Paints, Colors, Oils, and Varnishes Svo, *i 00 

Gairdner, J. W. I. Earthwork Svo {In Press.) 

Gant, L. W. Elements of Electric Traction Svo, *2 50 

Garcia, A. J. R. V. Spanish-English Railway Terms. . . .8vo, *4 50 

Garforth, W. E. Rules for Recovering Coal Mines after Explo- 
sions and Fires i2mo, leather, i 50 

Garrard, C. C. Electric Switch and Controlling Gear. . . . (In Press.) 

Gaudard, J. Foundations. (Science Series No. 34.) i6mo, o 50 

Gear, H. B., and V/illiams, P. F. Electric Central Station Dis- 
tributing Systems i2mo, *3 00 

Geerligs, H. C. P. Cane Sugar and Its Manufacture Svo, *5 00 

Geikie, J. Structural and Field Geology Svo, *4 00 

Mountains, Their Origin, Growth and Decay Svo, ^4 00 

The Antiquity of Man in Europe Svo, *3 00 

Georgi, F., and Schubert, A. Sheet Metal Working. Trans. 

by C. Salter Svo, 3 00 

Gerber, N. Analysis of Milk, Condensed Milk, and Infants' 

Milk-Food Svo, i 25 

Gerhard, W. T. Sanitation, Water-supply and Sewage Disposal 

of Country Houses i2mo, *2 00 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLiJ CATALOG 15 

Gas Lighting. (Science Series No. iii.) i6mo, o 50 

Gerhard, W. P. Household Wastes. (Science Series No. 97.) 
^■- i6mo, 

House Drainage. (Science No. 63.) i6mo, 

Sanitary Drainage of Buildings. (Science Series No. 93.) 

i6mo, 
Gerhardi, C. W. H. Electricity Meters Svo, 

Geschwind, L. Manufacture of Alum and Sulphates. Trans. 

by C. Salter 8vo, 

Gibbs, W. E. Lighting by Acetylene i2mo, 

Gibson, A. H. Hydraulics and Its Application 8vo, 

Water Hammer in HydrauUc Pipe Lines i2mo, 

Gibson, A. H., and Ritchie, E. V. Circular Arc Bow Girder. 4to, 

Gilbreth, F. B. Motion Study. A Method for Increasing the 

Efficiency of the Workman i2mo, 

Primer of Scientific Management i2mo, 

Gillmore, Gen. Q. A. Limes, Hydraulics Cement and Mortars. 

8vo, 

Roads, Streets, and Pavements i2mo, 

Golding, H. A The Th eta-Phi Diagram i2mo, 

Goldschmidt, R. Alternating Current Commutator Motor . Svo, 
Goodchild, W. Precious Stones. (Westminster Series.) . Svo, 

Goodeve, T. M. Textbook on the Steam-engine i2mo. 

Gore, G. Electrolytic Separation of Metals Svo, 

Gould, E. S. Arithmetic of the Steam-engine i2mo, 

Calculus. (Science Series No. 112.) i6mo, 

High Masonry Dams. (Science Series No. 22.) . . . i6mo, 

Practical Hydrostatics and Hydrostatic Formulas. (Science 

Series.) i6mo, 

Gratacap, L. P. A Popular Guide to Minerals Svo, 

Gray, J. Electrical Influence Machines i2mo, 

Gray, J. Marine Boiler Design i2mo, 

Greenhill, G. Dynamics of Mechanical Flight. , , ^ , ^ . . . . .Svo, 
Greenwood, E. Classified Guide to Technical and Commercial 

Books Svo, 

Gregorius, R. Mineral Waxes. Trans, by C. Salter .. .i2mo, 
Griffiths, A. B. A Treatise on Manures i2mo. 






50 





50 





50 


*4 


00 


*5 


00 


*i 


50 


*5 


00 


*2 


00 


*3 


50 


*2 


00 


*I 


00 


4 


00 


2 


00 


*i 


25 


*3 


00 


*2 


00 


2 


00 


*3 


50 


I 


00 





50 





50 





50 


*3 


00 


2 


00 


*i 


25 


*2 


50 


*3 


00 


*3 


00 


3 


00 



16 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

Griflaths, A. B. Dental Metallurgy 8vo, *3 50 

Gross, E. Hops 8vo, *4 50 

Grossman, J. Ammonia and its Compounds i2mo, *i 25 

Groth, L. A, Welding and Cutting Metals by Gases or Electric- 
ity. (Westminster Series.) 8vo, *2 00 

Grover, F. Modern Gas and Oil Engines 8vo, *2 00 

Gruner, A. Power-loom Weaving 8vo, *3 00 

Giildner, Hugo. Internal-Combustion Engines. Trans, by 

H. Diedrichs 4to, *io 00 

Gunther, C. 0. Integration i2mo. 

Gurden, R. L. Traverse Tables folio, half mor., *7 50 

Guy, A. E. Experiments on the Flexure of Beams 8vo, *i 25 

Haenig, A. Emery and the Emery Industry i2mo, *2 50 

Hainbach, R. Pottery Decoration. Trans, by C. Slater. . i2mo, *3 00 

Hale, W. J. Calculations of General Chemistry i2mo, *i 00 

Hall, C. H. Chemistry of Paints and Paint Vehicles i2mo, *2 00 

Hall, G. L. Elementary Theory of Alternate Current Work- 
ing 8vo, *i 50 

Hall, R. H. Governors and Governing Mechanism i2mo, *2 00 

Hall, W. S. Elements of the Differential and Integral Calculus 

8vo, *2 25 

Descriptive Geometry 8vo volume and 4to atlas, *3 50 

Haller, G. F., and Cunningham, E. T. The Tesla Coil i2mo, *i 25 

Halsey, F. A. Slide Valve Gears i2mo, i 50 

The Use of the Slide Rule. (Science Series.) i6mo, 50 

Worm and Spiral Gearing. (Science Series.) i6mo, o 50 

Hancock, H. Textbook of Mechanics and Hydrostatics 8vo, i 50 

Hancock, W. C. Refractory Materials. (Metallurgy Series. (/nPr^j.r.) 

Hardy, E. Elementary Principles of Graphic Statics i2mo, *i 50 

Harrison, W. B. The Mechanics' Tool-book i2mo, i 50 

Hart, J. W. External Plumbing Work 8vo, *3 00 

Hints to Plumbers on Joint Wiping 8vo, 

Principles of Hot Water Supply 8vo, 

Sanitary Plumbing and Drainage 8vo, 

Haskins, C. H. The Galvanometer and Its Uses i6mo, 

Hatt, J. A. H. The Colorist . Second Edition. . . .square i2mo, 



*3 


00 


*3 


00 


'3 


00 


I 


50 


*i 


50 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 17 

Hausbrandj E. Drying by Means of Air and Steam. Trans. 

by A. C. Wright i2mo, *2 oo 

■ Evaporating, Condensing and Cooling Apparatus. Trans. 

by A. C. Wright 8vo, *5 oo 

Hausmann, E. Telegraph Engineering 8vo, *3 oo 

Hausner, A. Manufacture of Preserved Foods and Sweetmeats. 

Trans, by A. Morris and H. Robson 8vo, *3 oo 

Hawkesworth, T. Graphical Handbook for Reinforced Concrete 

Design 4to, *2 50 

Hay, A. Continuous Current Engineering 8vo, *2 50 

Hayes, H. V. Public Utilities, Their Cost New and Deprecia- 
tion 8vo, *2 00 

Public Utilities, Their Fair Present Value and Return, 

Svo, *2 00 

Heather, H. J. S. Electrical Engineering Svo, *3 50 

Heaviside, O. Electromagnetic Theory. Three volumes. 

Svo, Vols. I and H, each, *5 00 
Vol. m, *7 50 

Heck, R. C. H. Steam Engine and Turbine Svo, *3 50 

Steam-Engine and Other Steam Motors. Two Volimies. 

Vol. I. Thermodynamics and the Mechanics Svo, *3 50 

Vol. n. Form, Construction and Working Svo, *5 00 

■ Notes on Elementary Kinematics : . Svo, boards, *i 00 

Graphics of Machine Forces Svo, boards, *i 00 

Heermann, P. Dyers' Materials. Trans, by A. C. Wright. 

i2mo, *2 50 
Hellot, Macquer and D'Apligny. Art of Dyeing Wool, Silk and 

Cotton Svo, *2 00 

Henrici, O. Skeleton Structures Svo, i 50 

Hering, D. W. Essentials of Physics for College Students. 

Svo, *i 75 
Hermann, G. The Graphical Statics of Mechanism. Trans. 

by A. P. Smith i2mo, 2 00 

Herring-Shaw, A. Domestic Sanitation and Plumbing. Two 

Parts Svo, *5 00 

Elementary Science of Sanitation and Plumbing .... Svo, *2 00 

Herzfeld, J. Testing of Yarns and Textile Fabrics Svo, *3 50 



18 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

Hildebrandt, A. Airships, Past and Present ... .8vo, *3 50 

Hildenbrand, B. W. Cable-Making. (Science Series No. 32.) 

i6mo, o 05 

Hildich, H. Concise History of Chemistry i2mo, *i 

Hill, J. W. The Purification of Public Water Supplies. New 52 

Edition. (In Press.) 

- — - Interpretation of Water Analysis (In Press.) 

Hill, M. J. M. The Theory of Proportion 8vo, *2 50 

Hiroi, I. Plate Girder Construction. (Science Series No. 95.) 

i6mo, o 50 

Statically-Indeterminate Stresses i2mo, *2 00 

Hirshfeld, C. F. Engineering Thermodynamics. (Science 

Series.) i6mo, o 50 

Hobart, H. M. Heavy Electrical Engineering 8vo, *4 50 

Design of Static Transformers 8vo, *2 00 

Electricity Bvo, *2 00 

Electric Trains Bvo, *2 50 

Electric Propulsion of Ships Bvo, *2 00 

Hobart, J. F. Hard Soldering, Soft Soldering, and Brazing . 

i2mo, *i 00 
Hobbs, W. R. P. The Arithmetic of Electrical Measurements 

i2mo, o 50 

Hoff, J. N. Paint and Varnish Facts and Formulas i2mo, *i 50 

Hole, W. The Distribution of Gas Bvo, *7 50 

Holley, A. L. Railway Practice folio, 6 00 

Hopkins, N. M. Experimental Electrochemistry 8vo, 

Model Engines and Small Boats i2mo, i 25 

Hopkinson, J., Shoolbred, J. N., and Day, R. E. Dynamic 

Electricity. (Science Series No. 71.) i6mo, o 50 

Horner, J. Practical Ironfounding 8vo, *2 00 

Gear Cutting, in Theory and Practice Bvo, *3 00 

Houghton, C. E. The Elements of Mechanics of Materials. i2mo, *2 00 

Houllevigue, L. The Evolution of the Sciences Bvo, *2 00 

Houstoun, R. A. Studies in Light Production i2mo, *2 00 

Hovenden, F. Practical Mathematics for Young Engineers, 

i2mo, *i 00 

Howe, G. Mathematics for the Practical Man i2mo, *i 25 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 19 

Howorth, J. Repairing and Riveting Glass, China and Earthen- 
ware 8vo, paper, *o 50 

Hubbard, E. The Utilization of Wood- waste 8vo, *2 50 

Hubner, J. Bleaching and Dyeing of Vegetable and Fibrous 

Materials. (Outlines of Industrial Chemistry.) .... *5 00 

Hudson, O. F. Iron and Steel. (Outlines of Industrial 

Chemistry.) 8vo, *2 00 

Humphrey, J. C. W. Metallography of Strain. (Metallurgy 

Series) (In Press.) 

Humphreys, A. C. The Business Features of Engineering 

Practice 8vo, *2 50 

Hunter, A. Bridge Work 8vo (In Press.) 

Hurst, G. H. Handbook of the Theory of Color Svo, *2 50 

Dictionary of Chemicals and Raw Products Svo, *3 00 

Lubricating Oils, Fats and Greases Svo, *4 00 

Soaps Svo, *5 00 

Hurst, G. H., and Simmons, W. H. Textile Soaps and Oils, 

Svo, *2 50 

Hurst, H. E., and Lattey, R. T. Text-book of Physics Svo, *3 00 

Also published in Three Parts : 

Vol. I. Dynamics and Heat Svo, *i 25 

Vol. II. Sound and Light Svo, *i 25 

Vol. III. Magnetism and Electricity Svo, *i 50 

Hutchinson, R. W., Jr. Long Distance Electric Power Trans- 
mission i2mo, *3 00 

Hutchinson, R. W., Jr., and Thomas, W. A. Electricity in 

Mining i2mo, 

Hutchinson, W. B. Patents and How to Make Money Out of 

Them i2mo, i 25 

Hutton, W. S. Steam-boiler Construction Svo, 6 00 

Hutton, W. S. The Works' Manager's Handbook Svo, 6 00 

Hyde, E. W. Skew Arches. (Science Series No. 15.).. . . i6mo, o 50 

Hyde, F. S. Solvents, Oils, Gums and Waxes i2mo, *2 00 

Induction Coils. (Science Series No. 53.) i6mo, o 50 

Ingham, A. E. Gearing. A practical treatise Svo, *2 50 

Ingle, H. Manual of Agricultural Chemistry Svo, *3 00 



20 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

Innes, C. H. Problems in Machine Design i2mo, *2 oo 

Air Compressors and Blowing Engines i2mo, *2 oo 

Centrifugal Pumps i2mo, *2 oo 

The Fan i2mo, *2 oo 

Ivatts, E. B. Railway Management at Stations 8vo, *2 so 

Jacob, A., and Gould, E. S. On the Designing and Construction 

of Storage Reservoirs. (Science Series No. 6.). . i6mo, o 50 
Jannettaz, E. Guide to the Determination of Rocks. Trans. 

by G. W. Plympton i2mo, i 50 

Jehl, F. Manufacture of Carbons 8vo, *4 00 

Tennings, A. S. Commercial Paints and Painting. (West- 
minster Series.) 8vo, *2 00 

Jennison, F. H. The Manufacture of Lake Pigments 8vo, *3 00 

Jepson, G. Cams and the. Principles of their Construction. . . Svo, *i 50 

Mechanical Drawing Svo (In Preparation.) 

Jervis-Smith, F. J. Dynamometers Svo, *3 50 

Jockin, W. Arithmetic of the Gold and Silversmith i2mo, *i 00 

Johnson, J. H. Arc Lamps. (Installation Manuals Series.) 

i2mo, *o 75 
Johnson, T. M. Ship Wiring and Fitting. (Installation 

Manuals Series) i6mo, *o 75 

Johnson, W. McA. The Metallurgy of Nickel (In Preparation.) 

Johnston, J. F. W., and Cameron, C. Elements of Agricultural 

Chemistry and Geology i2mo, 2 60 

Joly, J. Radioactivity and Geology i2mo, *3 00 

Jones, H. C. Electrical Nature of Matter and Radioactivity 



- <• 



i2mo, *2 00 

New Era in Chemistry i2mo, *2 00 

Jones, J. H. Tinplate Industry Svo, *3 00 

Jones, M. W. Testing Raw Materials Used in Paint... . . i2mo, *2 00 

Jordan, L. C. Practical Railway Spiral i2mo, Leather, *i 50 

Joynson, F. H. Designing and Construction of Machine Gear- 
ing Svo, 2 00 

Jtiptner, H. F. V. Siderology: The Science of Iron Svo, *5 00 

Kapp, G. Alternate Current Machinery. (Science Series No. 

96.) i6mo, o 50 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S BHORT-TITLE CATALOG 21 

Keim, A. W. Prevention of Dampness in Buildings ...... 8vo, *2 oo 

Keller, S. S. Mathematics for Engineering Students. 

i2mo, half leather, 

— — Algebra and Trigonometry, with a Chapter on Vectors. ... *i 75 

Plane and Solid Geometry *i 25 

and Knox, W. F. Analytical Geometry and Calculus . . *2 00 

Kelsey, W. R. Continuous-current Dynamos and Motors. 

8vo, *2 50 
Kemble, W. T., and Underhill, C. R. The Periodic Law and the 

Hydrogen Spectrum 8vo, paper, *o 50 

Kemp, J. F. Handbook of Rocks Svo, *i 50 

Kennedy, A. B. W., and Thurston, R. H. Kinematics of 

Machinery. (Science Series No. 54.) i6mo, o 50 

Kennedy, A. B. W., Unwin, W. C, and Idell, F. E. Compressed 

Air. (Science Series No. 106.) i6mo, o 50 

Kennedy, R. Modern Engines and Power Generators. Six 

Volumes 4ta, 15 00 

Single Volumes each, 3 00 

Electrical Installations. Five Volumes , 4to, 15 00 

Single Volumes each, 3 50 

Principles of Aeroplane Construction i2mo, *i 50 

Flying Machines; Practice and Design i2mo, *2 00 

Kennelly, A. E. Electro-dynamic Machinery Svo, i 50 

Kent, W. Strength of Materials. (Science Series No. 4i.).i6mo, o 50 

Kershaw, J. B. C. Fuel, Water and Gas Analysis Svo, *2 50 

Electrometallurgy. (Westminster Series.) Svo, *2 00 

The Electric Furnace in Iron and Steel Production.. i2mo, *i 50 

Electro-Thermal Methods of Iron and Steel Production, 

Svo, *3 00 

Kinzbrunner, C. Alternate Current Windings Svo, *i 50 

— — Continuous Current Armatures Svo, *i 50 

Testing of Alternating Current Machines Svo, *2 00 

Kirkaldy, W. G. David Kirkaldy's System of Mechanical 

Testing 4to, 10 00 

Kirkbride, J. Engraving for Illustration Svo, *i 50 

Kirkwood, J. P. Filtration of River Waters 4to, 7 50 

Kirschlce, A. Gas and Oil Engines i2mo. *i 25 



*5 


00 


*i 


50 


*7 


50 


*9 


GO 


2 


00 


*I 


GO 





75 


*5 


00 


*5 


00 


*3 


oo 


*2 


50 



22 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

Klein, J. F. Design of a High speed Steam-engine 8vo, 

Physical Significance of Entropy 8vo, 

Knight, R.-Adm. A. M. Modern Seamanship 8vo, 

Half Mor. 
Knott, C. G., and Mackay, J. S. Practical Mathematics. . .8vo, 

Knox, J. Physico-chemical Calculations i2mo, 

Fixation of Atmospheric Nitrogen. (Chemical Mono- 
graphs.) i2mo, 

Koester, F. Steam-Electric Power Pbmts 4to, 

Hydroelectric Developments and Engineering 4to, 

Keller, T. The Utilization of Waste Products 8vo, 

Cosmetics Bvo, 

Kremann, R. Application of Phj>]ico Chemical Theory to 
Technical Processes and Manufacturing ^Methods. 

Trans, by H. E. Potts 8vo, *3 00 

Kretchmar, K. Yam and Warp Sizing 8vo, 

Lallier, E. V. Elementary Manual of the Steam Engine. 

i2mo, 

Lambert, T. Lead and its Compounds 8vo, 

Bone Products and Manures 8vo, 

Lamborn, L. L. Cottonseed Products 8vo, 

Modern Soaps, Candles, and Glycerin 8vo, 

Lamprecht, R. Recovery Work Afcer Pit Fires. Trans, by 

C. Salter Bvo, *4 00 

Lancaster, M. Electric Cooking, Heating and Cleaning. .Bvo, *i 50 
Lanchester, F. W. Aerial Flight. Two Volumes. Bvo. 

Vol. I. Aerodynamics *6 00 

Vol. II. Aerodonetics *6 00 

Larner, E. T. Principles of Alternating Currents i2mo, *i 25 

LaRue, B. F. Swing Bridges. (Science Series No. 107.) . i6mo, o 50 
Lassar-Cohn, Dr. Modern Scientific Chemistry. Trans, by M. 

M. Pattison Muir i2mo, *2 00 

Latimer, L. H., Field, C. J., and Howell, J. W. Incandescent 

Electric Lighting. (Science Series No. 57.) i6mo, o 50 

Latta, M. N. Handbook of American Gas-Engineering Practice. 

Bvo, *4 50 



*4 


00 


*2 


00 


*3 


50 


*3 


00 


*3 


00 


*7 


50 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE Cx^TALOG 23 

American Producer Gas Practice 4to, *6 oo 

Laws, B. C. Stability and Equilibrium of Floating Bodies.Svo, *3 50 
Lawson, W. R. British Railways, a Financial and Commer- 
cial Sur^rey .8vo, *2 00 

Leask, A. R. Breakdowns at Sea i2mo, 2 00 

Refrigerating Machinery i2mo, 2 00 

Lecky, S. T. S. " Wrinkles " in Practical Navigation .... .8vo, *8 00 
Le Doux, M. Ice-Making Machines. (Science Series No. 46.) 

i6mo, o 50 
Leeds, C. C. Mechanical Drawing for Trade Schools . oblong, 4to, 

High School Edition *i 25 

Machinery Trades Edition *2 00 

Lef€vre, L. Architectural Pottery. Trans, by H. K. Bird and 

W. M. Binns 4to, *^ 50 

Lehner, S. Ink Manufacture. Trans, by A. Morris and H. 

Robson 8vo, *2 50 

Lemstrom, S. Electricity in Agriculture and Horticulture ., Svo, *i 50 

Letts, E. A. Fundamental Problems in Chemistry. . .lamo, *2 00 
Le Van, W. B. Steam-Engine Indicator. (Science Series No. 

78.) i6mo, 50 

Lewes, V.B. Liquid and Gaseous Fuels. (Westminster Series.) 

8vo, *2 00 

Carbonisation of Coal 8vo, *3 00 

Lewis, L. P. Railway Signal Engineering 8vo, *3 50 

Lieber, B. F. Lieber's Standard Telegraphic Code 8vo, *io 00 

Code. German Edition Bvo, *io 00 

Spanish Edition Bvo, *io 00 

French Edition , 8vo, *io 00 

Terminal Index 8vo, *2 50 

Lieber's Appendix folio, *i5 00 

Handy Tables 4to, *2 50 

Bankers and Stockbrokers* Code and Merchants and 

Shippers' Blank Tables Bvo, *i5 00 

Lieber, B. F. 100,000,000 Combination Code 8vo, *io 00 

Engineering Code 8vo, *I2 50 

Livermore, V. P., and Williams, J. How to Become a Com- 
petent Motorman i2mo, *i 00 



24 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

Livingstone, R. Design and Construction of Commutators.Svo, *2 25 

Mechanical Design and Construction of Generators. ..8vo, *3 50 

Lobben, P. Machinists' and Draftsmen's Handbook 8vo, 2 50 

Lockwood, T. D. Electricity, Magnetism, and Electro-teleg- 
raphy 8vo, 2 50 

Electrical Measurement and the Galvanometer. . . .i2mo, o 75 

Lodge, 0. J. Elementary Mechanics i2mo, i 50 

Signalling Across Space without Wires 8vo, *2 00 

Loewenstein, L. C, and Crissey, C. P. Centrifugal Pumps . Svo, *4 50 
Lomax, J. W. Cotton Spinning lamo, i 50 

Lord, R. T. Decorative and Fancy Fabrics Svo, *3 50 

Loring, A. E. A Handbook of the Electromagnetic Telegraph. 

(Science Series No. 39) i6mo, o 50 

Low, D. A. Applied Mechanics (Elementary) i6mo, o 80 

Lubschez, B. J. Perspective i2nio, *i 50 

Lucke, C. E. Gas Engine Design Svo, *3 00 

Power Plants: their Design, Efficiency, and Power Costs. 

2 vols {In Preparation.) 

Lunge, G. Coal-tar Ammonia. Two Volumes Svo, *iS 00 

Manufacture of Sulphuric Acid and Alkali. Three Volumes 

Svo, 
Vol. L Sulphuric Acid and Alkali, In three parts.... *i8 00 
Vol. II. Salt Cake, Hydrochloric Acid and Leblanc Soda. 

In two parts *i5 00 

Vol. III. Ammonia Soda *io 00 

Vol. IV. Electrolytic Methods {In Press.) 

Technical Chemists' Handbook i2mo, leather, *3 50 

Technical Methods of Chemical Analysis. Trans, by 

C. A. Keane. In collaboration with the corps of 
specialists. 
Vol. I. In two parts Svo, *i5 00 

Vol. II. In two parts Svo, *i8 00 

Vol. IIL In two parts Svo, *i8 00 

The set complete. , *48 00 

Technical Gas Analysis 8vo, *4 00 

Luquer, L. M. Minerals in Rock Sections Svo, *i 50 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 25 

Macaulay, J., and Hall, C. Modern Railway Working. 

Eight vols 4to, 20 oc 

Each volume separately. 3 00 

Macewen, H. A. Food Inspection 8vo, *2 50 

Mackenzie, N. F. Notes on Irrigation Works 8vo, *2 50 

Mackie, J. How to Make a Woolen Mill Pay 8vo, *2 00 

Maguire, Wm. R, Domestic Sanitary Drainage and Plumbing 

Svo, 4 00 

Malcolm, H. W. Submarine Telegraph Cable (In Press.) 

Mallet, A. Compound Engines. Trans, by R. R. Buel. 
(Science Series No. 10.) i6mo, 

Mansfield, A. N. Electro-magnets. (Science Series N , 64) 

i6mo, o 50 
Marks, E. C. R. Construction of Cranes and Lifting Machinery 

i2mo, *i 50 

Construction and Working of Pumps i2mo, *i 50 

Manufacture of Iron and Steel Tubes i2mo, *2 00 

Mechanical Engineering Materials i2mo, *i 00 

Marks, G. C. Hydraulic Power Engineering Svo, 3 50 

Inventions, Patents and Designs i2mo, *i 00 

Marlow, T. G. Drying Machinery and Practice Svo, *5 00 

Marsh, C. F. Concise Treatise on Reinforced Concrete.. . Svo, *2 50 

Marsh, C. F. Reinforced Concrete Compression Member 

Diagram i 50 

Marsh, C. F., and Dunn, W. Manual of Reinforced Concrete 

and Concrete Block Construction i6mo, mor., *2 50 

Marshall, W.J., and Sankey, H. R. Gas Engines. (Westminster 

Series.) Svo, *2 00 

Martin, G. Triumphs and Wonders of Modem Chemistry. 

Svo, *2 00 

Martin, N. Reinforced Concrete Svo, *2 50 

Martin, W. D. Hints to Engineers lamo, *i 00 

Massie, W. W., and Underhill, C. R. Wireless Telegraphy and 

Telephony i2mo, *i 00 

Mathot, R. E. Internal Combustion Engines Svo, *6 00 

Maurice, W. Electric Blasting Apparatus and Explosives ..Svo, *3 50 
Shot Firer*s Guide Svo, *i 50 



.26 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT TITLE CATALOG 

Maxwell, J. C. Matter and Motion. (Science Series No. 36.) 

i6mo, o 50 
Maxwell, W. H., and Brown, J. T. Encyclopedia of Municipal 

and Sanitary Engineering 4to, *io 00 

McCullough, E. Practical Surveying 8vo, *2 50 

McCuUough, R. S. Mechanical Theory of Heat 8vo, 3 50 

McGibbon, W. C. Indicator Diagrams for Marine Engineers, 

8vo, *3 00 

Marine Engineers' Drawing Book oblong, 4to, *2 00 

Mcintosh, J. G. Technology of Sugar 8vo, *4 50 

Industrial Alcohol 8vo, *3 00 

Manufacture of Varnishes and Kindred Industries. 

Three Volumes. 8vo. 

Vol. I. Oil Crushing, Refining and Boiling *3 50 

Vol. II. Varnish Materials and Oil Varnish Making *4 00 

Vol. III. Spirit Varnishes and Materials *4 5o 

McKnight, J. D., and Brown, A. W. Marine Multitubular 

Boilers *i 50 

McMaster, J. B. Bridge and Tunnel Centres. (Science Series 

No. 20.) i6mo, o 50 

McMechen, F. L. Tests for Ores, Minerals and Metals.. . i2mo, *i 00 

McPherson, J. A. Water-works Distribution Svo, 2 50 

Melick, C. W. Dairy Laboratory Guid« i2mo, *i 25 

Merck, E. Chemical Reagents: Their Purity and Tests. 

Trans, by H. E. Schenck Svo, 1 00 

Merivale, J. H. Notes and Formulae for Mining Students, 

i2mo, I 50 

Merritt, Wm. H. Field Testing for Gold and Silver. i6mo, leather, i 50 
Meyer, J. G. A., and Pecker, C. G. Mechanical Drawing and 

Machine Design 4to, 5 00 

Mierzinski, S. Waterproofing of Fabrics. Trans, by A. Morris 

and H. Robson Svo, *2 50 

Miller, G. A. Determinants. (Science Series No. 105.). . i6mo, 

Milroy, M. E. W. Home Lace -making i2mo, *i 03 

Mitchell, C. A. Mineral and Aerated Waters Svo, *3 oo 

and Prideaux, R. M. Fibres Used in Textile and 

Allied Industries Svo, *3 00 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT TITLE CATALOG 27 

Mitchell, C. F. and G. A. Building Construction and Draw- 
ing i2mo 

Elementary Course, *i 50 

Advanced Course, *2 50 
Monckton, C. C. F. Radiotelegraphy. (Westminster Series.) 

8V0, *2 GO 

Monteverde, R. D. Vest Pocket Glossary of English-Spanish, 

Spanish-English Technical Terms 64mo, leather, *i 00 

Montgomery, J. H. Electric Wiring Specifications i2mo, *i 00 

Moore, E. C. S. New Tables for the Complete Solution of 

Ganguillet and Kutter's Formula 8vo, *5 00 

Morecroft, J. H., and Hehre, F. W. Testing Electrical Ma- 
chinery 8vo, *i 50 

Morgan, A. P. Wireless Telegraph Construction for Amateurs. 

i2mo, *i 50 

Moses, A. J. The Characters of Crystals 8vo, *2 00 

and Parsons, C. L. Elements of Mineralogy 8vo, *2 50 

Moss, S. A. Elements of Gas Engine Design. (Science 

Series.) i6mo, o 50 

The Lay-out of Corliss Valve Gears. (Science Series) . 

i6mo, o 50 

Mulford, A. C. Boundaries and Landmarks. Svo, *i 00 

MuUin, J. P. Modern Moulding and Pattern-making. . . . i2mo, 2 50 
Munby, A. E. Chemistry and Physics of Building Materials. 

(Westminster Series.) Svo, *2 00 

Murphy, J. G. Practical Mining i6mo, i 00 

Murphy, W. S. Textile Industries, 8 vols *2o 00 

(Sold separately.) each, *3 00 

Murray, J. A. Soils and Manures. (Westminster Series.) .Svo, *2 00 

Naquet, A. Legal Chemistry . i2mo, 2 00 

Nasmith, J. The Student's Cotton Spinning Svo, 3 00 

Recent Cotton Mill Construction i2mo, 2 00 

Neave, G. B., and Heilbron, I. M. Identification of Organic 

Compounds i2mo, *i 25 

Neilson, R. M. Aeroplane Patents Svo, *2 00 

Nerz, F. Searchlights. Trans, by C. Rodgers Svo, *3 00 



28 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT TITLE CATALOG 

Nesbit, A. F. Electricity and Magnetism {In Preparation.) 

Neuberger, H., and Noalhat, H. Technology of Petroleum. 

Trans, by J. G. Mcintosh 8vo, *io oo 

Newall, J. W. Drawing, Sizing and Cutting Bevel-gears . . 8vo, i 50 
Newbiging, T. Handbook for Gas Engineers and Managers, 

8vo, *6 50 

Nicol, G. Ship Construction and Calculations 8vo, *4 50 

Nipher, F. E. Theory of Magnetic Measurements i2mo, i 00 

Nisbet, H. Grammar of Textile Design Svo, *3 00 

Nolan, H. The Telescope. (Science Series No. 51.) i6mo, o 50 

North, H. B. Laboratory Experiments in General Chemistry 

i2mo, *i 00 

Nugent, E. Treatise on Optics i2mo, i 50 

O'Connor, H. The Gas Engineer's Pocketbook. .. i2mo, leather, 3 50 
Ohm, G. S., and Lockwood, T. D. Galvanic Circuit. Trans, by 

William Francis. (Science Series No. 102.). . . . i6mo, o 50 

Olsen, J. C. Text book of Quantitative Chemical Analysis. .Svo, *4 00 
Olsson, A. Motor Control, in Turret Turning and Gun Elevating. 

(U. S. Navy Electrical Series, No. i.) . ...i2mo, paper, *o 50 

Ormsby, M. T. M. Surveying. i2mo, i 50 

Oudin, M. A. Standard Polyphase Apparatus and Systems . . Svo, *3 00 

Owen, D. Recent Physical Research Svo, *i 50 

Fakes, W. C. C, and Nankivell, A. T. The Science of Hygiene. 

Svo, *i 75 
Palaz, A. Industrial Photometry. Trans, by G. W. Patterson, 

Jr Svo, *4 00 

Pamely, C. Colliery Manager's Handbook Svo, *io 00 

Parker, P. A. M. The Control of Water 8vo, *5 00 

Parr, G. D. A. Electrical Engineering Measuring Instruments. 

8vo, *3 50 
Parry, E. J. Chemistry of Essential Oils and Artificial Per- 
fumes Svo, *5 00 

Parry, E. J. Foods and Drugs. Two Volumes Svo. 

Vol. I. Chemical and Microscopical Analysis of Food 

and Drugs *7 • 50 

Vol. II. Sale of Food and Drugs Acts *3 00 

■ and Coste, J. H. Chemistry of Pigments Svo, *4 50 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 29 

Parry, L. Notes on Alloys 8vo, 3 00 

Metalliferous Wastes 8vo, 2 00 

Analysis of Ashes and Alloys 8vo, 2 00 

Parry, L. A. Risk and Dangers of Various Occupations 8vo, *3 00 

Parshall, H. F., and Hobart, H. M. Armature Windings .... 4to, *7 50 

Electric Railway Engineering 4to, *io 00 

Parsons, S. J. Malleable Cast Iron 8vo, *2 50 

Partington, J. R. Higher Mathematics for Chemical Students 

lamo, *2 00 
Textbook of Thermodynamics 8vo, *4 00 

Passmore, A. C. Technical Terms Used in Architecture ...8vo, *3 50 

Patchell, W. H. Electric Power in Mines 8vo, *4 00 

Paterson, G. W. L. Wiring Calculations i2mo, *2 00 

Electric Mine Signalling Installations i2mo, *i 50 

Patterson, D. The Color Printing of Carpet Yarns. Svo, *3 50 

Color Matching on Textiles Svo, *3 00 

Textile Color Mixing 8vo, *3 00 

Paulding, C. P. Condensation of Steam in Covered and Bare 

Pipes Svo, *2 00 

Transmission of Heat Through Cold-storage Insulation 

i2mo, *i 00 

Payne, D. W. Iron Founders' Handbook {In Press.) 

Peddie, R. A. Engineering and Metallurgical Books. . . . i2mo, *i 50 

Peirce, B. System of Analytic Mechanics 4to, 10 00 

Pendred, V. The Railway Locomotive. (Westminster Series.) 

Svo, *2 DO 

Perkin, F. M. Practical Method of Inorganic Chemistry . . i2mo, *i 00 

and Jaggers, E. M. Elementary Chemistry lamo, *i 00 

Perrine, F. A. C. Conductors for Electrical Distribution . . . Svo, *3 50 

Petit, G. White Lead and Zinc White Paints Svo, *i 50 

Petit, R. How to Build an Aeroplane. Trans, by T. O'B. 

Hubbard, and J. H. Ledeboer Svo, *i 50 

Pettit, Lieut. J. S. Graphic Processes. (Science Series No. 76.) 

i6mo, o 50 
Philbrick, P. H. Beams and Girders. (Science Series No. 8S.) 

i6mo, 

Phillips, J. Gold Assaying Svo, *2 50 

Dangerous Goods Svo, 3 50 



I 


50 





50 


I 


00 


4 


00 


o 


50 



SO D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

Phin, J. Seven Follies of Science i2mo, *i 25 

Pickworth, C. N. The Indicator Handbook. Two Volumes 

i2mo, each, 

Logarithms for Beginners i2mo, boards, 

The Slide Rule i2mo, 

Plattner's Manual of Blowpipe Analysis. Eighth Edition, re- 
vised. Trans, by H. B. Cornwall 8vo, 

Plympton, G.W. The Aneroid Barometer. (Science Series.), i6mo, 

How to become an Engineer. (Science Series No. 100.) 

i6mo, o 50 

Van Nostrand's Table Book. (Science Series No. 104). 

i6mo, o 50 

Pochet, M. L. Steam Injectors. Translated from the French. 

(Science Series No. 29.) i6mo, 

Pocket Logarithms to Four Places. (Science Series.) i6mo, 

leather, 
PoUeyn, F. Dressings and Finishings for Textile Fabrics . 8vo, 

Pope, F. G. Organic Chemistry lamo, 

Pope, F. L. Modern Practice of the Electric Telegraph. . . 8vo, 

Popplewell, W. C. Prevention of Smoke 8vo, 

Strength of Materials 8vo, 

Porritt, B. D. The Chemistry of Rubber. (Chemical Mono- 
graphs.) i2mo, 

Porter, J. R. Helicopter Flying Machines i2mo, 

Potts, H. E. Chemistry of the Rubber Industry. (Outlines of 

Industrial Chemistry.) Svo, 

Practical Compounding of Oils, Tallow and Grease Svo, 

Pratt, K. Boiler Draught i2mo, 

High Speed Steam Engines Svo, 

Pray, T., Jr. Twenty Years with the Indicator Svo, 

Steam Tables and Engine Constant Svo, 

Prelini, C. Earth and Rock Excavation Svo, 

Dredges and Dredging Svo, 

Graphical Determination of Earth Slopes Svo, 

• Tunneling .8vo, 

Prescott, A. B. Organic Analysis Svo, 

and Johnson, 0. C. Quantitative Chemical Analysis . Svo, 

and Sullivan, E. C. First Book in Qualitative Chemistry 

i2mo, *i 50 






50 





50 


I 


00 


*3 


00 


*2 


25 


I 


50 


*3 


50 


*i 


75 


*0 


75 


I 


25 


*2 


00 


*3 


50 


*i 


25 


*2 


00 


2 


50 


2 


00 


*3 


00 


*3 


00 


*2 


00 


*3 


GO 


5 


00 


*3 


50 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 31 

Prideaux, E. B. R. Problems in Physical Chemistry 8vo, *2 oo 

Primrose, G. S. C. Zinc. (Metallurgy Series.) {In Press.) 

PuUen, W. W. F. Application of Graphic Methods to the Design 

of Structures i2mo, *2 50 

Injectors: Theory, Construction and Working i2mo- *i 50 

Indicator Diagrams 8vo, *2 50 

Engine Testing 8vo, *4 50 

Pulsifer, W. H. Notes for a History of Lead 8vo, 4 00 

Putsch, A. Gas and Coal-dust Firing 8vo, *3 00 

Pynchon, T. R. Introduction to Chemical Physics Svo, 3 00 

Rafter, G. W. Mechanics of Ventilation. (Science Series No. 

33-) i6mo, o 50 

■ Potable Water. (Science Series No. 103.) i6mo, o 50 

Treatment of Septic Sewage. (Science Series.). . . . i6mo, o 50 

and Baker, M. N. Sewage Disposal in the United States 

4to, *6 00 

Raikes, H. P. Sewage Disposal Works Svo, *4 00 

Ramp, H. M. Foundry Practice (Jn Press.) 

Randau, P. Enamels and Enamelling Svo, *4 00 

Rankine, W. J. M. Applied Mechanics Svo, 5 00 

Civil Engineering Svo, 6 50 

Machinery and Millwork Svo, 5 00 

The Steam-engine and Other Prime Movers Svo, 5 00 

and Bamber, E. F. A Mechanical Textbook Svo, 3 50 

Raphael, F. C. Localization of Faults in Electric Light and 

Power Mains Svo, *3 00 

RaschjE. Electric Arc Phenomena. Trans, by K. Tornberg. 

Svo, *2 00 

Rathbone, R. L. B. Simple Jewellery Svo, *2 00 

Rateau, A. Flow of Steam through Nozzles and Orifices. 

Trans, by H. B. Brydon Svo, *i 50 

Rautenstrauch, W. Notes on the Elements of Machine Design, 

Svo, boards, *i 50 
Rautenstrauch, W., and Williams, J. T. Machine Drafting and 
Empirical Design. 

Part I. Machine Drafting. Svo, *i 25 

Part II. Empirical Design {In Preparation.) 



^2 


5C 


*2 


5c 


*3 


50 


*4 


50 


o 


50 


*I 


25 


o 


50 


*5 


00 


*5 


00 


*3 


00 


I 


50 



32 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

Raymond, E. B. Alternating Current Engineering lamo, 

Rayner, H. Silk Throwing and Waste Silk Spinning. . .8vo, 
Recipes for the Color, Paint, Varnish, Oil, Soap and Drysaltery 

Trades 8vo, 

Recipes for Flint Glass Making lamo, 

Redfern, J. B., and Savin, J. Bells, Telephones. (Installa- 
tion Manuals Series.) i6mo, 

Redgrove, H. S. Experimental Mensuration i2mo, 

Redwood, B, Petroleum. (Science Series No. 92.) . . . .i6mo, 

Reed, S. Turbines Applied to Marine Propulsion 8vo, 

Reed's Engineers' Handbook Svo, 

Key to the Nineteenth Edition of Reed's Engineers' 

Handbook Svo, 

Useful Hints to Sea-going Engineers i2mo, 

Reinhardt, C. W. Lettering for Draftsmen, Engineers, and 

Students oblong 4to, boards, i 00 

Reiser, F. Hardening and Tempering of Steel. Trans, by A. 

Morris and H. Robson i2mo, *2 50 

Reiser, N. Faults in the Manufacture of Woolen Goods. Trans. 

by A. Morris and H. Robson Svo, 

Spinning and Weaving Calculations Svo, 

Renwick, W. G. Marble and Marble Working Svo, 

Reynolds, C, and Idell, F. E. Triple Expansion Engines. 

(Science Series No. 99.) i6mo, 

Rhead, G. F. Simple Structural Woodwork i2mo, 

Rhodes, H. J. Art of Lithography Svo, 

Rice, J. M., and Johnson^ W. W. A New Method of Obtaining 

the Differential of Functions i2mo, o 50 

Richards, W. A. Forging of Iron and Steel (/;/ Press.) 

Richards, W. A., and North, H. B. Manual of Cement Testing. 

Richardson, J. The Modern Steam Engine Svo, 

Richardson, S. S. Magnetism and Electricity i2mo, 

Rideal, S. Glue and Glue Testing Svo, 

Rimmer, E. J. Boiler Explosions Svo, 

Rings, F. Concrete in Theory and Practice i2mo, 

Reinforced Concrete Bridges i2mo, 

Ripper, W. Course of Instruction in Machine Drawing. . folio, 



*2 


50 


*5 


00 


5 


00 





50 


*i 


00 


3 


50 



+ j 


50 


*3 


50 


*2 


00 


*4 


00 


*i 


75 


*2 


50 


*5 


00 


*6 


00 



o 


50 


o 


50 


o 


50 


*I 


50 


25 


00 


*I 


50 

00 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 33 

Roberts, F. C. Figure of the Earth. (Science Series No. 79.) 

i6mo, o 50 
Roberts, J., Jr. Laboratory Work in Electrical Engineering 

8vo, *2 00 

Robertson, L. S. Water-tube Boilers 8vo, *2 00 

Robinson, J. B. Architectural Composition 8vo, *2 50 

Robinson, S. W. Practical Treatise on the Teeth of Wheels. 

(Science Series No. 24.) i6mo, 

^ Railroad Economics. (Science Series No. 59.) . . . .i6mo, 

Wrought Iron Bridge Members. (Science Series No. 

60. ) i6mo, 

Robson, J. H, Machine Drawing and Sketching 8vo, 

Roebling, J. A. Long and Short Span Railway Bridges . . folio, 
Rogers, A. A Laboratory Guide of Industrial Chemistry. . i2mo, 

Industrial Chemistry 8vo, 

Rogers, F. Magnetism of Iron Vessels. (Science Series No. 30.) 

i6mo, o 50 
Rohland, P. Colloidal and its Crystalloidal State of Matter. 

Trans, by W. J. Britland and H. E. Potts i2mo, *i 25 

Rollins, W. Notes on X-Light 8vo, 5 00 

Rollinson, C. Alphabets Oblong i2mo, i 00 

Rose, J. The Pattern-makers' Assistant 8vo, 2 50 

Key to Engines and Engine-running i2mo, 2 50 

Rose, T. K. The Precious Metals. (Westminster Series.). .8 vo, *2 00 
Rosenhain, W. Glass Manufacture. (Westminster Series.). .8 vo, *2 00 
Physical Metallurgy, An Introduction to. (Metallurgy- 
Series.) 8vo, *3 50 

Roth. Physical Chemistry 8vo, *2 00 

Rothery, G. C, and Edmonds, H. 0. The Modern Laundry. 

2 vols 4to, leather, 12 00 

Rouillion, L. The Economics of Manual Training 8vo, 2 00 

Rowan, F. J. Practical Physics of the Modem Steam-boiler.8vo, *3 00 
and Idell, F. E. Boiler Incrustation and Corrosion. 

(Science Series No. 27.) i6mo, o 50 

Roxburgh, W. General Foundry Practice. (Westminster 

Series Svo, *2 00 

Ruhmer, E. Wireless Telephony. Trans, by J. Erskine- 

Murray 8vo, *3 50 



I 


25 


*4 


00 


I 


00 


I 


25 


*i 


25 


*2 


00 


*3 


50 


5 


00 


*3 


00 


*5 


00 


*i 


25 



34 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 
Russell, A. Theory of Electric Cables and Networks 8vo, *3 00 

Sabine, R. History and Progress of the Electric Telegraph. i2mo, 

Sanford, P. G. Nitro-explosives 8vo, 

Saunders, C. H. Handbook of Practical Mechanics . . i6mo, 

leather, 

Sayers, H. M. Brakes for Tram Cars 8vo, 

Scheele, C. W. Chemical Essays Svo, 

Scheithauer, W. Shale Oils and Tars Svo, 

Schellen, H. Magneto-electric and Dynamo -electric Machines 

Svo, 

Scherer, R. Casein. Trans, by C. Salter Svo, 

Schidrowitz, P. Rubber, Its Production and Uses Svo, 

Schindler, K. Iron and Steel Construction Works i2mo, 

Schmall, C. N. First Course in Analytic Geometry, Plane and 

Solid i2mo, half leather, *i 75 

Schmall, C. N., and Schack, S. M. Elements of Plane Geometry 

i2mo, *i 25 

Schmeer, L. Flow of Water Svo, *3 00 

Schumann, F. A Manual of Heating and Ventilation. 

i2mo, leather, i 50 

Schwartz, E. H. L. Causal Geology Svo, *2 50 

Schweizer, V., Distillation of Resins Svo, *3 50 

Scott, W. W. Qualitative Chemical Analysis. A Laboratory 

Manual Svo *i 50 

Scribner, J. M. Engineers' and Mechanics' Companion. 

i6mo, leather, i 50 
Scudder, H. Electrical Conductivity and Ionization Constants 

of Organic Compounds Svo, *3 00 

Searle, A. B. Modem Brickmaking Svo, *5 00 

Cement, Concrete and Bricks Svo, *3 00 

Searle, G. M. *' Sumners' Method." Condensed and Improved. 

(Science Series No. 124.) Svo. o 50 

Seaton, A. E. Manual of Marine Engineering Svo, S 00 

Seaton, A. E., and Rounthwaite, H. M. Pocket-book of Marine 

Engineering i6mo, leather, *3 50 

Seeligmann, T., Torrilhon, G. L., and Falconnet, H. India 

Rubber and Gutta Percha. Trans, by J. G. Mcintosh 

Svo, *5 00 



D. VAN" NOSTKAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 35 

Seidell, A. Solubilities of Inorganic and Organic Substances . 8vo, *3 oo 

Seligman, R. Aluminum. (Metallurgy Series) (In Press.) 

Sellew, W. H. Steel Rails 4to, *i2 50 

Railway Maintenance (In Press.) 

Senter, G. Outlines of Physical Chemistry i2mo, *i 75 

Textbook of Inorganic Chemistry i2mo, *i 75 

Sever, G. F. Electric Engineering Experiments ... 8vo, boards, *i 00 
and Townsend, F. Laboratory and Factory Tests in Elec- 
trical Engineering ..•••• 8vo, *2 50 

Sewall, C. H. Wireless Telegraphy Svo, *2 00 

Lessons in Telegraphy i2mo, *i 00 

Sewell, T. The Construction of Dynamos Svo, *3 00 

Sexton, A. H. Fuel and Refractory Materials i2mo, *2 50 

Chemistry of the Materials of Engineering . . i2mo, *2 50 

Alloys (Non- Ferrous) Svo, *3 00 

The Metallurgy of Iron and Steel Svo, *6 50 

Seymour, A. Modern Printing Inks Svo, *2 00 

Shaw, H. S. H. Mechanical Integrators. (Science Series No. 

83.) i6mo, o 50 

Shaw, S. History of the Staffordshire Potteries Svo, *2 00 

Chemistry of Compounds Used in Porcelain Manufacture. 8 vo, *5 00 

Shaw, W. N. Forecasting Weather 8vo, *3 50 

Sheldon, S., and Hausmann, E. Direct Current Machines, . Svo, *2 50 

Alternating-current Machines. Svo, *2 50 

Electric Traction and Transmission Engineering Svo, *2 50 

Shields, J. E. Notes on Engineering Construction..!. . . . i2mo, i 50 

Shreve, S. H. Strength of Bridges and Roofs Svo, 3 50 

Shunk, W. F. The Field Engineer i2mo, mor., 2 50 

Simmons, W. H., and Appleton, H. A. Handbook of Soap 

Manufacture Svo, *3 00 

Simmons, W. H., and Mitchell, C. A. Edible Fats and Oils . *3 00 

8vo, *3 00 

Simpson, G. The Naval Constructor i2mo, mor., *5 00 

Simpson, W. Foundations Svo (In Press.) 

Sinclair, A. Development of the Locomotive Engine. 

Svo, half leather, 5 00 
Sindall, R. W. Manufacture of Paper. (Westminster Series.) 

Svo, *2 00 



36 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

and Bacon, W. N. The Testing of Wood Pulp 8vo, *2 50 

Sloane, T. O'C. Elementary Electrical Calculations i2mo, *2 00 

Smallwood, J. C. Mechanical Laboratory Methods 

leather, lamo, *2 50 

Smith, C. A. M. Handbook of Testing. Vol. I. Materials . . *2 50 
and Warren, A. G. New Steam Tables 8vo^ *i 25 

Smith, C. F. Practical Alternating Currents and Testing . . 8vo, *2 50 

Practical Testing of Dynamos and Motors 8vo, *2 00 

Smith, F. E. Handbook of General Instruction for Mechanics. 

i2mo, I 50 

Smith, H. G. Minerals and the Microscope i2mo, *i 25 

Smith, J. C. Manufacture of Paint 8vo, *3 50 

Smith, R. H. Principles of Machine Work i2mo, *3 00 

Elements of Machine Work i2mo, *2 00 

Smith, W. Chemistry of Hat Manufacturing. , . . '. i2mo, *3 00 

Snell, A. T. Electric Motive Power 8vo, *4 co 

Snow, W. G. Pocketbook of Steam Heating and Ventilation . 

(In Press.} 
Snow, W. G., and Nolan, T, Ventilation of Buildings. (Science 

Series No. 5.) i6mo, o 50 

Soddy, F. Radioactivity Svo, *3 00 

Solomon, M. Electric Lamps. (Westminster Series.) Svo, *2 00 

Somerscales, A. N. Mechanics for Marine Engineers. .i2mo, *i 50 

Mechanical and Marine Engineering Science Svo, *5 00 

Sothern, J. W. The Marine Steam Turbine Svo, *5 00 

Verbal Notes and Sketches for Marine Engineers .... Svo, *5 00 

Sothern, J. W., and Sothern, R. M. Elementary Mathematics 

for Marine Engineers i2mo, *i 00 

Simple Problems in Marine Engineering Design. .. .i2mo, *i 00 

Southcombe, J. E. Chemistry of the Oil Industries. (Out- 
lines of Industrial Chemistry) Svo, *3 00 

Soxhlet, D. H. Dyeing and Staining Marble. Trans, by A. 

Morris and H. Robson Svo, *2 50 

Spang, H.W. A Practical Treatise on Lightning Protection. i2mo, i 00 
Spangenburg, L. Fatigue of Metals. Translated by S. H. 

Shreve. (Science Series No. 23.) i6mo, o 50 

Specht, G. J., Hardy, A. S., McMaster, J. B,, and Walling. Topo- 
graphical Surveying. (Science Series No. 72.). . i6mo, o 50 
Spencer, A. S. Design of Steel-Framed Sheds Svo, 4 00 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 37 

Speyers, C. L. Text-book of Physical Chemistry 8vo, *2 25 

Spiegel, L. Chemical Constitution and Physiological Action. 

(Trans, by C. Luedeking and A. C. Boylston.) . .{In Press.) 

Sprague, E. H. Hydraulics lamo, i 25 

Stahl, A. W. Transmission of Power. (Science Series No. 28.) 

i6mo, 
■ and Woods, A. T. Elementary Mechanism . i2mo, *2 oc 

Staley, C, and Pierson, G. S. The Separate System of Sewerage. 

8vo, *3 00 

Standage, H. C. Leatherworkers' Manual 8vo, *3 50 

Sealing Waxes, Wafers, and Other Adhesives 8vo, *2 00 

Agglutinants of All Kinds for All Purposes i2mo, *3 50 

Stansbie, J. H. Iron and SteeL (Westminster Series.). .. .8vo, *2 00 

Steadman, F. M. Unit Photography izmo, *2 00 

Stecher, G. E. Cork. Its Origin and Industrial Uses..i2mo, i 00 
Steinman, D. B. Suspension Bridges and Cantilevers. (Science 

Series No. 127.) o 50 

Stevens, H. P. Paper Mill Chemist i6mo, *2 50 

Stevens, J. S. Theory of Measurements i2mo, *i 25 

Stevenson, J. L. Blast-Furnace Calculations. . . .i2mo, leather, *2 00 

Stewart, G. Modern Steam Traps i2mo, *i 25 

Stiles, A. Tables for Field Engineers i2mo, i 00 

Stodola, A. Steam Turbines. Trans, by L. C. Loewenstein . 8vo, *5 00 

Stone, H. The Timbers of Commerce 8vo, 3 50 

Stopes, M. Ancient Plants 8vo, *2 00 

The Study of Plant Life 8vo, *2 00 

Stumpf , J. Una-Flow Steam Engine 4to, *3 50 

Sudborough, J. J., and James, T. C. Practical Organic Chem- 
istry i2mo, *2 00 

Suffllng, E. R. Treatise on the Art of Glass Painting .8vo, *3 50 

Sur, F. J. S. Oil Prospecting and Extracting 8vo, *i 00 

Swan, K. Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. (Westminster 

Series.) 8vo, *2 00 

Swinburne, J., Wordingham, C. H., and Martin, T. C. Electric 

Currents. (Science Series No. 109.). i6mo, o 50 

Swoope, C. W. Lessons in Practical Electricity i2mo, *2 00 



38 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT TITLE CATALOG 

Tailfer, L. Bleaching Linen and Cotton Yarn and Fabrics. 8vo, *5 oo 
Tate, J. S. Surcharged and Different Forms of Retaining- walls. 

Science Series No. 7 i6mo, 

Taylor, F. N. Small Water Supplies i2mo, 2 00 

Masonry in Civil Engineering 8vo, *2 50 

Tenney, E. H. Test Methods for Steam Power Plants. i2mo, *2 50 
Terry, H. L. India Rubber and its Manufacture. (Westminster 

Series.) 8vo, *2 00 

Thayer, H. R. Structural Design 8vo, 

Vol. I. Elements of Structural Design *2 00 

Vol. II. Design of Simple Structures *4 00 

Vol. III. Design of Advanced Structures {In Preparation.) 

Foundations and Masonry {In Press.) 

Thiess, J. B., and Joy, G. A. Toll Telephone Practice. . . .Svo, *3 50 
Thorn, C, and Jones, W. H. Telegraphic Connections. 

oblong i2mo i 50 

Thomas, C. W. Paper-makers' Handbook {In Press.) 

Thompson, A. B. Oil Fields of Russia 4to, *7 50 

Thompson, S. P. Dynamo Electric Machines. (Science 

Series No. 75.) i6mo, 050 

Thomson, G. Modern Sanitary Engineering, House Drain- 
age, etc Svo, ^'3 00 

Thornley , T. Cotton Combing Machines Svo, *3 00 

Cotton Spinning Svo, 

First Year *i 50 

Second Year *2 50 

Third Year *2 50^ 

Cotton Waste Svo, *3 00 

Thurso, J. W. Modern Turbine Practice 8vo, *4 -: 

Tidy, C. Meymott. Treatment of Sewage. (Science Series No. 

94.). i6mo, o 50 

Tillmans, J. Water Purification and Sewage Disposal. Trans. 

by Hugh S. Taylor Svo, '''2 00 

Tinney, W. H. Gold-mining Machinery -. Svo, *3 00 

Titherley, A. W. Laboratory Course of Organic Chemistry . Svo, *2 co 

Toch, M. Chemistry and Technology of Mixed Paints 

Materials for Permanent Painting i2mo, '''2 00 

Tod, J., and McGibbon, W. C. Marine Engineers' Board of 

Trade Examinations Svo, * i 50 



*7 


5c 


*2 


00 


*0 


75 


*I 


25 


*6 


GO 





50 


I 


oo 


I 


25 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT TITLE CATALOG 

Todd, J., and Whall, W. B. Practical Seamanship 8vo, 

Tonge, J. Coal. (Westminster Series.) 8vo, 

Townsend, F. Alternating Current Engineering 8vo, boards, 

Townsend, J. Ionization of Gases by Collision Bvo, 

Transactions of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. 
Five volumes now ready. Vols. I to VI, 1908 to 1913, 

8vo, each. 

Traverse Tables. (Science Series No. 115.) i6mo, 

mor.j 
Treiber, E, Foundry Machinery. Trans, by C. Salter., i2mo 
Trinks, W., and Housum, C. Shaft Governors. (Science 

Series No. 122.) i6mo, o 50 

Trowbridge, W. P. Turbine Wheels. (Science Series No. 44.) 

i6mo, o 50 

Tucker, J. H. A Manual of Sugar Analysis Bvo, 3 50 

Tunner, P. A. Treatise on Roll-turning. Trans, by J. B. 

Pearse .Bvo text and folio atlas, 6 00 

TurnbuU, Jr., J., and Robinson, S. W. A Treatise on the 
Compound Steam-engine. (Science Series No. 8.) 

i6mo, 

Turrill, S. M. Elementary Course in Perspective i2mo, *i 25 

Twyford, H. B. Purchasing Bvo, *3 00 

Underbill, C. R. Solenoids, Electromagnets and Electromag- 
netic Windings i2mo, *2 00 

Underwood, N., and Sullivan, T. V. Chemistry and Tech- 
nology of Printing Inks Bvo, *3 00 

Urquhart, J. W. Electro-plating i2ir.o, 2 00 

Electrotyping i2mo, 2 00 

Usborne, P. 0. G. Design of Simple Steel Bridges Bvo, *4 00 

Vacher, F. Food Inspector's Handbook i2mo, 3 00 

Van Nostrand's Chemical Annual. Third issue 19 13. Leather. 

i2mo, *2 50 

Year Book of Mechanical Engineering Data {In Press.) 

Van Wagenen, T. F. Manual of Hydraulic Mining i6mo, i 00 



40 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT TITLE CATALOG 

Vega, Baron, Von. Logarithmic Tables 8vo, cloth, 2 00 

half mor., 2 50 

Vincent, C. Ammonia and its Compounds. Trans, by M. J. 

Salter 8vo, *2 00 

Volk, C. Haulage and Winding Appliances 8vo, *4 00 

Von Georgiovics, G. Chemical Technology of Textile Fibres.. 

Trans, by C. Salter 8vo, *4 50 

Chemistry of Dyestuffs. Trans, by C. Salter Svo, *4 50 

Vose, G. L. Graphic Method for Solving Certain Questions in 

Arithmetic and Algebra. (Science Series No. 16.) 

i6mo, o 50 

Vosmaer, A. Ozone (In Press.) 

Wabner, R. Ventilation in Mines. Trans, by C. Salter. . .Svo, *4 50 

Wade, E. J. Secondary Batteries Svo, *4 00 

Wadmore, J. M. Elementary Chemical Theory i2mo, *i 50 

Wadsworth, C. Primary Battery Ignition i2mo, *o 50 

Wagner, E. Preserving Fruits, Vegetables, and Meat. . . . i2mo, *2 50 

Waldram, P. J. Principles of Structural Mechanics. . . .i2mo, *3 00 

Walker, F. Aerial Navigation Svo, 2 00 

Dynamo Building. (Science Series No. 98.) i6mo, o 50 

Walker, J. Organic Chemistry for Students of Medicine . Svo, 2 50 

Walker, S. F. Steam Boilers, Engines and Turbines Svo, 3 00 

Refrigeration, Heating and Ventilation on Shipboard. . i2mo, *2 00 

Electricity in Mining Svo, *3 50 

Wallis-Tayler, A. J. Bearings and Lubrication Svo, *i 50 

Motor Vehicles for Business Purposes Svo, 3 30 

Refrigeration, Cold Storage and Ice Making Svo, *4 50 

Sugar Machinery i2mo, *2 00 

Aerial or Wire Ropeways Svo, 3 00 

Walsh, J. J. Chemistry of Mining and Mine Ventilation, 

i2mo, *2 00 

Wanklyn, J. A. Water Analysis i2mo, 2 00 

Wansbrough, W. D. The AB C of theDifferentialCalculus.i2mo, *i 50 

Slide Valves i2mo, *2 00 

Waring, Jr., G. E. Sanitary Conditions. (Science Series No. 31.) 

i6mo, o 50 

■ Sewerage and Land Drainage *6 00 

Modern Methods of Sewage Disposal i2mo, 2 00 

How to Drain a House .'2mo, i 25 



D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY'S SHORT TITLE CATALOG 41 

Warnes, A. R. Coal Tar Distillation 8vo, *2 50 

Warren, F. D. Handbook on Reinforced Concrete i2mo, *2 50 

Watkins, A. Photography, (Westminster Series.) 8vo, *2 00 

Watson, E. P. Small Engines and Boilers i2mo, i 23 

Watt, A. Electro-plating and Electro-refining of Metals *4 50 

Electro-metallurgy i2mo, i 00 

The Art of Paper Making *3 00 

The Art of Soap-making 8 vo, 3 00 

Leather Manufacture Svo, *4 00 

Webb, H. L. Guide to the Testing of Insulated Wires and 

Cables 1 2mo, i 00 

Webber, W. H. Y. Town Gas. (Westminster Series.) Svo, *2 00 

Weisbach, J. A Manual of Theoretical Mechanics Svo, *6 00 

sheep, *7 50 

and Herrmann, G. Mechanics of Air Machinery. .... Svo, *3 75 

Welch, W. Correct Lettering {In Press.) 

Weston, E. B. Loss of Head Due to Friction of Water in Pipes 

i2mo, *i 50 

Weymouth, F. M. Drum Armatures and Commutators. .Svo, *3 00 

Wheatley, 0. Ornamental Cement Work Svo, *2 00 

Wheeler, J. B. Art of War i2mo, i 75 

Field Fortifications i2mo, i 75 

Whipple, S. An Elementary and Practical Treatise on Bridge 

Building Svo, 3 00 

White, C. H. Methods in Metallurgical Analysis. (Van 

Nostrand's Textbooks.) i2mo, *2 50 

White, G. T. Toothed Gearing i2mo *i 25 

Wilcox, R. M. Cantilever Bridges. (Science Series No. 25.) 

i6mo, o 50 
Wilda, H. Steam Turbines. Trans, by C. Salter. .. i2mo, *i 25 
Cranes and Hoists. Trans, by Chas. Salter i2mo, i 25 

Wilkinson, H. D. Submarine Cable Laying and Repairing . Svo, *6 00 

Williamson, J. Surveying Svo, 

Williamson, R. S. Practical Tables in Meteorology and 

Hypsometry 4to, 2 50 

Wilson, F. J., and HeilbiK)n, I. M. Chemical Theory and Cal- 
culations i2mo, *i 00 

Wilson, J. F. Essentials of Electrical Engineering (In Press.) 



42 D. VAN NOSTRAXD COMPANY'S SHORT-TITLE CATALOG 

Wimperis, H. E. Internal Combustion Engine 8vo, *3 oo 

Primer of the Internal Combustion Engine i2mo, i oo 

Application of Power to Road Transport i2mo, *i 50 

Winchell, N. H., and A. N. Elements of Optical Mineralogy. 8 vo, *3 50 

Winslow, A. Stadia Surveying. (Scieixe Series No. 77.). i6mo, o 50 
Wisser, Lieut. J. P. Explosive Materials. (Science Series No. 

70.) i6mo, o 50 

Wisser, Lieut. J. P. Modern Gun Cotton. (Science Series No. 

89.) i6mo, o 50 

Wolff, C. E. Modern Locomotive Practice 8vo, *4 20 

Wood, De V. Luminiferous Aether. (Science Series No. 85.) 

i6nio, o 50 
Wood, J. K. Chemistry of Dyeing. (Chemical Monographs.) 

i2mo, *o 75 

Worden, E. C. The Nitrocellulose Industry. Two vols..8vo, *io 00 

Technology of Cellulose Esters. In 10 vols 8vo. 

Vol. VIII. Cellulose Acetate *5 00 

Wren, H. Organometallic Compounds of Zinc and Magnesium. 

(Chemical Monographs.) i2mo, *o 75 

Wright, A. C. Analysis of Oils and Allied Substances ....'. 8vo, *3 50 

Simple Method for Testing Painter's Materials 8vo, *2 50 

Wright, F. W. Design of a Condensing Plant i2mo, *i 50 

Wright, H. E. Handy Book for Brewers 8vo, *5 00 

Wright, J. Testing, Fault Finding, etc. for Wiremen (Installa- 
tion Manuals Series) i6mo, *o 50 

Wright, T. W. Elements of Mechanics 8vo, *2 50 

and Hayf ord, J. F. Adjustment of Observations 8vo, *3 00 

Young, J. E. Electrical Testing for Telegraph Engineers . . .8vo, *4 00 

Zahner, R. Transmission of Power. (Science Series No. 40.) 

i6mo, 

Zeidler, J., and Lustgarten, J, Electric Arc Lamps 8vo, *2 00 

Zeuner, A. Technical Thermodynamics. Trans, by J. F. 

Klein. Two Volumes. . , 8vo, *8 00 

Zipser, J. Textile Raw Materials. Trans, by C. Salter. . . . .8vo, *5 00 
Zur Nedden, F. Engineering Workshop Machines and Proc- 
esses. Trans, by J. A. Davenport 8vo, *2 00 



are prepared to supply, either from 

their complete stock or at 

short notice. 

Any Technical or 

Scientific Book 

In addition to publishing a very large 
and varied number of Scifntific and 
Engineering Books, D. Van Nostrand 
Company have on hand the largest 
assortment in the United States of such 
books issued by American and foreign 
publishers. 



All inquiries are cheerfully and care- 
fully answered and complete catalogs 
sent free on request. 



25 Park Place ^ « , . , New York 



3M— 8— IS 



